Sprinklr, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2020

2020003383 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/952,490 11/25/2015 Ragy Thomas 074014-000002 1070
106303 7590 09/30/2020
Nixon Peabody LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4100
Los Angeles, CA 90071
EXAMINER
YESILDAG, MEHMET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipairlink@nixonpeabody.com
lapatentmb@nixonpeabody.com
slevy@nixonpeabody.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RAGY THOMAS, MURALI SWAMINATHAN,
and XIN FENG

Appeal 2020-003383
Application 14/952,490
Technology Center 3600

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use “Appellant” to reference the applicant as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
“Sprinklr, Inc.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003383
Application 14/952,490

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
According to Appellant, the invention “relates to systems and methods
for making statistical inferences based upon large quantities of largely
unstructured data.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
argued subject matter.
1. A method implemented on a processing device, the
method using information embedded in social media data
messages to identify potential buyers and determine the
potential buyers' buy intent (BI) in terms of BI scores and
thereby provide companies with market information to
influence buying decisions of individuals, improve
advertisement efficiency, reduce potential risk and grow sales
and revenue, the method comprising:
establishing a social media data messages collection system,
wherein the social media data messages collection system
comprises a plurality of servers and storage containers located
in a cloud, wherein the plurality of servers is configured with
processing capability, wherein a number of servers within the
plurality of servers is dynamically adjustable based on social
media data messages collected and processed in the social
media data messages collection system;
wherein the social media data messages are based on a number
of companies, brands, customers that are catered to, and a
number of key-words used;
fetching and collecting, by the social media data messages
collection system, social media data messages from social
media network sites and websites;
saving the collected social media data messages in the storage
containers located in the cloud;
normalizing the social media data messages collected in the
storage containers by a data convertor element located within
the plurality of servers, wherein normalizing the collected
social media data messages comprises:
Appeal 2020-003383
Application 14/952,490

3
processing the social media data messages by a multi-
language dictionary located within the plurality of
servers, wherein the multi-language dictionary comprises
multiple languages to convert social media data messages
from foreign languages;
converting the social media data messages processed by
the multi-language dictionary using a data converter
element within the plurality of servers, wherein the data
converter element is configured to convert the social
media data messages collected in the storage containers
into a unified standard word format; and
processing and tagging the social media data messages
converted by the data converter element using a part of
speech (POS) tag analysis engine, wherein the POS tag
analysis engine is configured to generate accurate search
indexes for improved search and collection of relevant
social media data messages;
training the social media data collection and processing system
using the collected social media data messages for artificial
intelligence (AI) based BI estimation, wherein the training
comprises supplying the collected social media data messages
to a first server within the plurality of servers, wherein the first
server comprises at least one processor configured to analyze
the social media data messages to generate a BI estimation; and
providing the normalized and POS tagged social media data
messages to the at least one processor of the first server to
generate BI estimation in the form of BI scores, wherein
generating BI scores comprises:
processing the normalized and POS tagged social media
data messages using vector space modelling, exact match
analysis, message replacement and Bayesian
classification algorithms to determine a first group of
social media data messages to generate the BI score
estimation for a potential buyer, wherein the first group
of social media data messages comprises a number of
social media data messages relating to a brand, a product
or a service associated with the potential buyer that
Appeal 2020-003383
Application 14/952,490

4
exceeds a minimum threshold value, wherein the number
of social media data messages that exceeds a minimum
threshold value are associated with the potential buyer,
and wherein the BI score estimation of the potential
buyer is converted into a BI score using the at least one
processor.
Appeal Br., Claims Appendix.
Rejections
Claims 1–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
a patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2–7.
OPINION
Principles of Law
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014) (citation omitted).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217−18 (citing Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75−77 (2012)). In accordance
with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed
to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are
drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party
to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611
(2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept
of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Appeal 2020-003383
Application 14/952,490

5
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent-ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219−20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594−95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent-eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden,
56 U.S. 252, 267−68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson,
409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting
to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.”
Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace
that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known
structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
Appeal 2020-003383
Application 14/952,490

6
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a
patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation omitted).
“A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
PTO Guidance
The PTO provides guidance for 35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO’s 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Guidance”). Under the Guidance, we first look to whether the
claim 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, and mental
processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) § 2106.05(a)−(c), (e)−(h) (9th ed. 2018)).
84 Fed. Reg. at 52−55. Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and
(2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then
conclude the claim is directed to a judicial exception (id. at 54) and look to
whether the claim:
Appeal 2020-003383
Application 14/952,490

7
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); 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.
Id. at 56.
Examiner’s Error
As explained below, the Examiner fails to address the specific
operation of the claimed invention. We are accordingly persuaded of error
in the rejection of claims 1–22 under § 101.
For the Guidance’s Step 2A(1), the Examiner merely quotes (with
minor alterations) the entirety of each claim and then summarily concludes
“all of [the limitations] include certain methods of organizing human
activities, specifically based on commercial and legal interactions, and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between.”
Id. at 3–6; see also id. at 5 (additionally mentioning “mathematical
concepts”). For Step 2A(2), the Examiner perfunctorily identifies all
claimed hardware elements as additional elements, summarily concludes
they do not add a practical application, and merely lists as support all Step
2A(2) considerations identified by the above-mentioned sections of the
Guidance and MPEP. Id. at 6. For Step 2A(2), the Examiner perfunctorily
identifies all claimed hardware elements as additional elements, summarily
concludes they do not add non-WURC activity, and merely lists as support
all Step 2B considerations identified by the above-mentioned sections of the
Guidance and MPEP. Id. at 6–7.
Appeal 2020-003383
Application 14/952,490

8
The Examiner makes the following determinations: “Claim 1 is
directed to the abstract idea of determining potential buyers and their buy
intent (BI) in terms of BI scores using social media data messages.” Final
Act. 2–3. “[The invention’s object] ‘to improve advertisement efficiency,
reduce potential risk and grow sales and revenue’ are improvements to a
business model and not a technological improvement.” Id. at 7 (quoting ).
“[S]toring and retrieving data in . . . cloud-based storages . . . are [WURC]
and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (See MPEP 2106.05(d) and
2106.05(g)).” Id. at 7 (referencing the claimed use of “cloud” servers and
storage).
Appellant contends “[T]he Examiner apparently identifies the claims
as a whole (and not any specific limitation) as the abstract idea.” Appeal Br.
21. “[T]he Examiner improperly oversimplifies the claims” (id. at 22) and
consequently fails to consider whether “the claims involve a highly-specific
set of operations . . . that provide a . . . technical benefit” (id. at 26) and “do
not merely implement an old practice in a new environment” (id. at 27).
“[T]he Examiner does not even address . . . the claimed multi-language
dictionary server, part of speech (POS) tag analysis engine, classification
engine” (Reply Br. 3) or the “number of servers . . . [that] is dynamically
adjustable based on social media data messages collected” (Appeal Br. 25).
And, “[the Examiner] does not offer any explanation why the presently
pending claims are any different than the claims of McRo” (Reply Br. 1),
e.g., whether “[the claims have the specificity required to . . . claim[] a way
of achieving [results and thereby] avoid[] preemption concerns” (id. at 2).
We are persuaded of error because the Examiner provides insufficient
analysis of the claimed invention’s specific operation. The Examiner states
Appeal 2020-003383
Application 14/952,490

9
the claimed invention determines a buy intent for social media messages
(Final Act. 2–3); determines this constitutes a human activity for a
commercial or personal interaction (id. at 3–6); and determines the claimed
invention lacks a practical application and non-WURC activity in view of
the Guidance and MPEP (id. at 6–7). These determinations, however, are
not supported with sufficient reasoning or evidence, and are not
accompanied by an analysis of specific claim operations.
Further, the Examiner dismisses Appellant’s arguments, stating all
claimed operations are part of the identified JE subject matter. Ans. 4. In
addition to lacking a meaningful discussion of the arguments, the
Examiner’s response rests on a determination—the identification of JE
subject matter—that itself lacks a meaningful analysis of the claimed
invention’s specific operation.
In sum, the Examiner has not “refer[red] to what is recited . . . and
explain[ed] why it is considered to be an exception,” i.e., “explain[ed] why a
specific limitation(s) recited in the claim falls within one of the enumerated
groupings of abstract ideas.” Guidance Update 16 (original emphasis). Nor
has the Examiner “evaluate[d] the integration of the judicial exception into a
practical application by explaining that . . . the claim as a whole . . . does not
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” Id. (original
emphasis). The Examiner has, rather, sought to avoid addressing the
claimed invention’s specific operation by merely and summarily labeling all
claimed operations as “human activity” for commercial or personal
interactions. In Step 2A(1), the Examiner must explain why the operations
fall within commercial or personal interactions, which is not reached by
merely stating the claimed invention determines a buy intent for social
Appeal 2020-003383
Application 14/952,490

10
media messages (Final Act. 2–3). In Step 2A(2), assuming (arguendo) a
continued and meaningful identification of each operation as particular JE
subject matter, the Examiner must explain why the claimed invention’s
operations are not integrated into a practical application by specific relations
to hardware (e.g., by the argued adjustment of servers) and/or specific data
and rules (e.g., by the argued POS tag analysis). Compare BASCOM Glob.
Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (Though filtering constituted an abstract idea, the claimed filtering
operations were specifically arranged on a network so as to constitute a
technical mechanism that can confer patent-eligibility.); McRO, Inc. v.
Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Though
animation constituted an abstract idea, the claimed animation operations
were specifically arranged by data and rules so as to constitute a technical
mechanism that can confer patent-eligibility.).
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–22 § 101 Eligibility 1–22

REVERSED