DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 4/9/2026, Applicant, on 7/9/2026, amended Claim 1 and added Claims 8-20. Claims 1-20 are pending in this action and have been considered in full, and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea by stating some of the claims cannot be performed in the human mind (pointing out the producing of a graph data structure, the amended limitations), and stating that there is no word risk exists in Claim 1, and thus the claims are eligible as there is no abstract idea. Examiner disagrees as there are two identified abstract ideas, as per the rejection below. That of both a “Mental Process” and a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”, as the claims recite limitations for the purposes of managing transactions of Customers, which is a Commercial Interaction, Managing Human Activity. Further, the claims are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies such as a system, processor, and memory to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It” for managing transactions of customers which is completely abstract. The claims are not directed at a specific technical problem as the claims are directed at identifying skills, which is completely abstract, and any purported improvement would be entirely within the abstraction. There is no improvement to the system, processor, etc., or any other additional element, alone or in combination, as per Applicant’s Specification shown in the rejection below. This is “Applying It” similar to Alice, on a generic computing system.
Applicant asserts the claims are integrated into a practical application and significantly more, citing Flook, Enfish, and Bascom, generally asserting eligibility under 101, and therefore because of this the claims are eligible as they are practically integrated. Examiner disagrees as the claims are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies such as a computing system with a processor and memory to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It” for managing transactions of customers which is completely abstract, and any purported improvement would be entirely within the abstraction. There is no improvement to a technology or any technological process, as any inventive concept as well as the amendments would be contained wholly within the abstraction. There is no improvement to the system, processor, memory, machine learning, or any other additional element, alone or in combination, as per Applicant’s Specification shown in the rejection below. This is “Applying It”, similar to Alice, on a generic computing system.
Applicant asserts the claims are significantly more, by stating that there is no Berkheimer analysis performed, and that examiner has produced no evidence that the limitations of the claims are not well-understood, routine, and conventional, which Applicant states the amended limitations of the claims to support, and thus is eligible. Examiner disagrees as the claims are not significantly more, the amended limitations of the claims are part of the abstraction other than the use of a machine learning model, and a Berkheimer analysis is only required if examiner asserts the claims are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Examiner has only stated that if they were considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, which again they are not, then Applicant’s own specification has been used to prove this assertion as in the rejection below. Further this analysis only has to do with the additional elements themselves, alone and in combination, and there is no improvement to any of these additional elements alone or in combination as per above and the rejection below. The claim limitations merely utilize current technologies to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It” for managing transactions of customers. There is no improvement to the computer, memory, processor, machine learning, or any other additional element, as per Applicant’s Specification shown in the rejection below, nor is there any improvement to any other additional element within the claim alone or in combination. This is “Applying It”, similar to Alice, on a generic computing system with a processor and memory.
Applicant asserts the amended and new Claims are eligible essentially because they use machine learning, comparing this to Desjardins. Examiner disagrees as Desjardins has no parallel here as this is not directed at improving a machine learning model, but rather utilizing a machine learning model for managing transactions of customers, and thus any purported improvement would be entirely within the abstraction. There is no improvement to a technology or any technological process, as any inventive concept as well as the amendments would be contained wholly within the abstraction. There is no improvement to the system, processor, medium, machine learning, or any other additional element, alone or in combination, as per Applicant’s Specification shown in the rejection below. This is “Applying It”, similar to Alice, on a generic computing system.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the Claims are ineligible as there is no inventive concept, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §103 – Applicant argues that amended limitations are not taught by Silberman and Shah. Examiner disagrees as Silberman and Shah both teach use of nodes in a network as in [0053] of Silberman and [0051] of Shah where there is a use in conjunction with the events and the identified events of interest and a customer as above. Tortoriello teaches use of knowledge graph structures as in [0051] with nodes and edges as in [0053] which are used along with customer events and customers as in [0078]. This teaches the amended limitations of the claims.
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is considered non-persuasive, the combination of Silberman, Shah, and Tortoriello teaches the amended limitations of the claims, and the claims and their dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
Claim 12 recites the limitations of “producing a graph data structure in which…”. This is unclear as is this the same graph data structure as in Claim 1 or not, and thus the claim is indefinite. For examiner purposes, these all will be taken as the user interfaces in Claim 1.
The dependent claim inherits the deficiencies of the independent, and thus the dependent is similarly rejected.
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.
Alice – Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 17 are directed at limitations for retrieving data of at least one event from a customer timeline (Receiving Information, an Observation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, Managing/Mitigating Risk); obtaining information from the customer timeline (Receiving Information, an Observation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, Managing Transactions of Customers); generating one or more patterns from the customer timeline (Analyzing the Collected Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, Managing Transactions of Customers); identifying at least one event of interest from the one or more patterns (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, Managing Transactions of Customers); identifying one or more issues related to the event of interest (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, Managing Transactions of Customers); building the journey using the retrieved data to determine an impact on other customers based on the one or more identified issues, wherein building the journey includes producing a graph data structure with nodes that represent events, including the identified event of interest, and edges that connect the nodes and that each represent one or more customers (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, Managing Transactions of Customers); and analyzing the journey to determine whether one of either or both of the event or the identified issue happened differently than what was initially anticipated when contrasted with other previously analyzed journeys (Analyzing and potentially Transmitting the Information, an Evaluation and Judgment, a Mental Process; a Commercial Interaction, Managing Transactions of Customers), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of managing customer risk, but for the recitation of generic computer components as in Claims 4 and 5 where there is use of a medium, graphical user interface, and computer program. That is, other than reciting general use of a computer for Claim 1 (which in Claims 4 and 5 are a computer-readable storage medium, user interface, and a computer program), a system, processor, and memory, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Managing transactions of customers, a Commercial Activity. For example, generating one or more patterns from the customer timeline encompasses a supervisor or manager looking at a customer timeline and analyzing it for patterns, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for Managing Transactions of Customers, a Commercial Interaction, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The computer, system, processor, computer-readable storage medium, user interface, program, and memory, and other additional elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmission steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0046] In an aspect, the present systems and methods can be operational with numerous other general purpose or special purpose computing system environments or configurations. Examples of well-known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that can be suitable for use with the systems and methods comprise, but are not limited to, personal computers, server computers, laptop devices, cloud services, mobile devices (e.g., smart phones, tablets, and the like)”
Which shows any type of generic computer can be used, such as any handheld device, telephone, computer, etc., to perform the abstract limitations, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving and transmission steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the external systems, mobile client, etc., nor the receiving and transmission steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with the additional elements of a computer-readable storage medium, user interface, and program which are generic when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, as reasoned above, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
New Claims 8-16 and 18-20 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with the additional elements of machine learning system which is highly generic when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, as reasoned above, and thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 14-15, and 17F are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silberman (U.S. Publication No. 2021/003,5152) in view of Shah (U.S. Publication No. 2022/033,5439) in further view of Tortoriello (U.S. Publication No. 2020/026,5483).
Regarding Claims 1 and 17, Silberman teaches a method of building a journey for journey mining, the method comprising:
retrieving data of at least one event from a customer timeline ([0028-29] customer timelines and events are received);
obtaining information from the customer timeline ([0036] and [0028-29] a customer timeline is received);
generating one or more patterns from the customer timeline ([0036] patterns are determined for correlation);
identifying at least one event of interest from the one or more patterns ([0036-37] particular events and timelines are ranked using the CVV which is based on the pattern);
building the journey using the retrieved data to determine an impact on other customers based on the one or more identified issues ([0047] identifying impacts and build timelines and marketing according to the identified risks); and
analyzing the journey to determine whether one of either or both of the event or the identified issue happened differently than what was initially anticipated when contrasted with other previously analyzed journeys ([0029] the system analyzes the available data with the customers journey to determine if there are variances using learning).
Although Silberman teaches individuals having seasonal issues, and determination of problems, it does not explicitly state and issue to an event.
Shah teaches identifying one or more issues related to the event of interest ([0018] event responses to issues are determined/identified).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the determination of issues of Silberman with the identification of issues of Shah as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which all teach solutions to problems in remediation of issues at events, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve the strategies being used during escalation as taught in [0026] of Shah.
Although both Siblerman and Shah teaches use of nodes in a network as in [0053] of Siblerman and [0051] of Shah use in conjunction with the events and the identified events of interest and a customer as above, neither explicitly states there is a use of a graph structure with nodes and edges.
Tortoriello teaches use of knowledge graph structures as in [0051] with nodes and edges as in [0053] which are used along with customer events and customers as in [0078].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the determination of issues and identification of issues with use of nodes of the combination of Silberman and Shah with the use of a graph data structure with nodes and edges of Tortoriello as they are all analogous art along with the claimed invention which all teach solutions to problems in remediation of issues at events, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase overall conversation quality and efficiency as taught in [0019] of Tortoriello.
Examiner notes Silberman teaches a system, processor, and memory
Regarding Claim 2, Silberman teaches further comprising determining a risk or an opportunity based on the journey ([0047] determined opportunity and loss based on the journey and information).
Regarding Claim 3, Although Silberman teaches a risk and opportunity of a journey and timeline as taught in Claims 1 and 2 above, it does not explicitly teach an escalation being used on either.
Shah teaches escalation management analysis on the risk or the opportunity as in [0034-35].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the risk and opportunities of issues of Silberman with the identification of risks and escalation management of Shah as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which all teach solutions to problems in remediation of issues at events, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve the strategies being used during escalation as taught in [0026] of Shah.
Regarding Claim 4, Silberman teaches further comprising receiving the data from a computer-readable storage medium ([0128] computer readable medium is used in the process).
Regarding Claim 5, Silberman teaches wherein building the journey includes the interaction of a user with a graphical user interface in communication with a computer program ([0120] and [0124] a user and communication interface and display device in communication with computer and programs).
Regarding Claim 6, Silberman teaches further comprising a user adding a new event to the customer timeline ([0086] new events are added to new event timelines).
Regarding Claim 7, Silberman teaches determination of journeys and timelines, and analyzing of timelines and journeys as in Claim 1 above, it does not explicitly teach analyzing or mining the journey or pattern.
Shah teaches analyzing patterns as in [0026] for events/journeys and determination of escalation events as in [0034-35].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the risk and opportunities of issues of Silberman with the identification of risks and escalation management of Shah as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which all teach solutions to problems in remediation of issues at events, it is old and well-known to mine event data from timelines, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve the strategies being used during escalation as taught in [0026] of Shah.
Regarding Claim 8, Silberman teaches further comprising:
learning, with a machine learning system, characteristics of one or more events previously identified, wherein identifying this information, the criteria and events comprises identifying the one or more issues with the machine learning system and based on the learned characteristics ([0029][0032] and [0043] machine learning model with criteria/characteristics are use to identify [0036-37] particular events and timelines are ranked using the CVV which is based on the pattern),
Shah teaches identifying one or more issues related to the event of interest ([0018] event responses to issues are determined/identified).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the determination of issues of Silberman with the identification of issues of Shah as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which all teach solutions to problems in remediation of issues at events, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve the strategies being used during escalation as taught in [0026] of Shah.
Regarding Claim 14, Silberman teaches building the journey (As in Claim 1 above) and further comprises producing a visualization of the data structures in a user interface as in [0120].
Tortoriello teaches use of knowledge graph structures as in [0051] with nodes and edges as in [0053] which are used along with customer events and customers as in [0078].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the determination of issues and identification of issues with use of nodes of the combination of Silberman and Shah with the use of a graph data structure with nodes and edges of Tortoriello as they are all analogous art along with the claimed invention which all teach solutions to problems in remediation of issues at events, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase overall conversation quality and efficiency as taught in [0019] of Tortoriello.
Regarding Claim 15, Silberman teaches further comprising determining the impact on other customers by determining a total count of customers that participated in the journey or a total number of times the journey occurred ([0058] total and threshold amount of how man times customer performs journey, also in [0088])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13, 16, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection and any other rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220335439 A1
Shah; Vishal et al.
EVENT PREDICTION USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
US 20210035152 A1
Silberman; Gabriel M. et al.
PREDICTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A MARKETING CAMPAIGN PRIOR TO DEPLOYMENT
US 20200126126 A1
Briancon; Alain Charles et al.
CUSTOMER JOURNEY MANAGEMENT ENGINE
US 20180129390 A1
Wu; Jingtao et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EVENT DATA VISUALIZATION
US 20200265483 A1
CANALETTI P et al.
System for providing dialog and communications monitoring using artificial intelligence and analytics-based monitoring and machine learning, comprises data stores to store and manage data, and analytics system has data access interface
US 20180189255 A1
HANCE T et al.
Method for managing image annotations in e.g. text, by network-based file sharing computer system, involves causing client device to display tag at portion of image based on relative coordinates of image comment and dimensions of image
US 20220366332 A1
Duessel; Patrick
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RISK-ADAPTIVE SECURITY INVESTMENT OPTIMIZATION
US 20220044283 A1
Briancon; Alain Charles et al.
CUSTOMER JOURNEY MANAGEMENT ENGINE
US 20210165653 A1
Bishop; David Anthony
Methods and Systems for Managing Agile Development
US 20200265483 A1
TORTORIELLO; Felice et al.
DIALOGUE MONITORING AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) BASED ANALYTICS
US 20200265443 A1
Shah; Vishal et al.
EVENT PREDICTION USING ARTIFICAL INTELLEGENCE
US 20200117448 A1
Bishop; David Anthony
Methods and Systems for Managing Agile Development
US 20190019213 A1
Silberman; Gabriel M. et al.
PREDICTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A MARKETING CAMPAIGN PRIOR TO DEPLOYMENT
US 20180365628 A1
Bhaskaran; Sujith Kattathara
AGILE TEAMS FREELANCE-SOURCING: ONLINE SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ENHANCING SUCCESS POTENTIAL OF FREELANCE PROJECTS
US 20180189255 A1
Kofman; Igor et al.
IMAGE ANNOTATIONS IN COLLABORATIVE CONTENT ITEMS
US 20170161063 A1
Bishop; David Anthony
Methods and Systems for Managing Agile Development
US 20160189082 A1
Garrish; John et al.
USER INTERFACE AND UNDERLYING DATA ANALYTICS FOR CUSTOMER SUCCESS MANAGEMENT
US 20150381801 A1
Rajakumar; Anthony et al.
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND MEDIA FOR DISAMBIGUATING CALL DATA TO DETERMINE FRAUD
US 20140012633 A1
Megdal; Myles G. et al.
USING COMMERCIAL SHARE OF WALLET TO COMPILE MARKETING COMPANY LISTS
US 20130275331 A1
Megdal; Myles G. et al.
USING COMMERCIAL SHARE OF WALLET IN PRIVATE EQUITY INVESTMENTS
US 20130132162 A1
Banerjee; Arindam et al.
Method and system for enabling collaboration in an enterprise
US 20120136763 A1
Megdal; Myles G. et al.
USING COMMERCIAL SHARE OF WALLET IN PRIVATE EQUITY INVESTMENTS
US 20080228541 A1
Megdal; Myles G. et al.
Using commercial share of wallet in private equity investments
US 20080004970 A1
Ehrensberger; Michael J. et al.
Method for customized objective predetermined organized selling
US 20030110070 A1
De Goeij, Marc Alexander
Method, framework and system for organizing, aligning and managing organizations
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 JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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 on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 10/5/2026
Prosecution Insights