DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 01/21/2026. Claim 11 has been amended. Therefore, claims 1-2, 6-12, and 14-18 are pending and have been addressed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-2, 6-12, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is reciting an abstract without significantly more.
3. Under Step 1 of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, claim 1 recites a process (i.e., a series of acts or steps), claim 11 recites a manufacture (i.e., an article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
4. Under Step 2A – Prong One of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, the claimed invention recites to an abstract idea.
5. Claim 1 which is representative of claim 11 recites:
“accessing data for web published T&C's, said data comprising: a scrolling speed, a navigation tracking, a hover tracking, a view times tracking, and a click tracking performed by a plurality of persons interacting with said web published T&C's;”, “determining, based on said data, an amount of attention given to different aspects of said web published T&C's;”, “obtaining customer query data for existing T&C's, said customer query data obtained from audible queries; text queries, email queries, and internet chat queries;”, “determining, based on said customer query data, a query occurrence for different aspects of said existing T&C's;” and “utilizing said amount of attention given to different aspects of said web published T&C's in conjunction with said query occurrence for different aspects of said existing T&C's to establish a customer importance value for each of said different aspects of said T&C's;”, “combining…a number of aspects of a T&C's portion of a customer agreement to be summarized and at least one aspect not to be summarized, said number of aspects to be summarized selected from a group consisting of: interest rate information, minimum payment information, and billing date information;”, “in response to a selection create a T&C summary;”
The limitations above demonstrate the independent claims recite the abstract idea of summarizing terms and conditions from a customer agreement which are concepts that encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, business relations), managing personal behavior or interactions between people, (i.e., following rules or instructions) and mental processes (i.e., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions), is subject matter that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04 II
The Applicant’s Specification in at least [0002] discloses an account such as a credit account, bank account, customer loyalty/reward account, or the like typically has a set of terms and conditions which govern the roles and responsibilities of the account issuer (bank, merchant, company, or the like) and of the account holding customer. The terms and conditions may define things such as, but not limited to: the billing cycle of an account; chargeable fees; the minimum payment required on the balance of the account; the payment due date for the account; the number of points awarded per dollar spent on the account; cancellation conditions for the account; responsibilities in the event of theft/misuse of the account; expiration of loyalty/reward points; and the interest rate charged on the account. An accountholder should be aware of and understand the terms and conditions applicable to their account because a failure to comprehend such terms and conditions can lead to misunderstandings and confusion. Because of this, issuers of accounts may be motivated, or even required by law, to advise account holding customers of some aspects of the terms and conditions and/or provide customers with access to the terms and conditions applicable to their account. Likewise, when terms and conditions change during the life of the account, account issuers may be similarly motivated, or required by law, to advise account holding customers and/or provide them with access to the applicable terms and conditions.
Consistent with the Applicant’s disclosure the series of steps relate to the collection of various types information and understanding the meaning of that information, [i.e., determining/identifying said aspects, creating a T&C summary], where these steps can be performed by a human, using “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”, because they involve making determinations and identifications, which are mental tasks humans routinely do, and thus can be practically performed in the human mind. Also, the series of steps relate to legal obligations and business relations for helping an account holder understand their terms and conditions of a customer agreement from an issuer. Lastly, the limitations manage personal behavior or interactions between people because the steps recite acts a user may follow to request and search their customer agreement. As such, all of these limitations recited in the independent claims are an abstract idea.
6. Under Step 2A – Prong Two of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of: “training an artificial intelligence of a computer system to generate a smart summarizer, said training comprising:”, “an issuer summary guideline with said smart summarizer, said issuer summary guideline comprising”, “integrating said smart summarizer with a webpage comprising: one or more T&C's of a customer agreement; a selectable button to initiate said smart summarizer; and an optional search field to allow the input of a search term about which a T&C summary will be focused;”, “of said selectable button, using said smart summarizer to”, “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” - see claims 1 and 11 is/are recited at a high-level of generality in light of the specification. Since the specification in at least [Figs. 1 & 8] describes the additional elements, i.e., computer components, in general terms without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being implemented to perform the abstract idea. As such these additional elements merely add the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (f).
The other additional element of: “updating…to display said T&C summary” and “automatically generating and sending a cellular text message of said T&C summary to a customer requesting said T&C summary” adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., data storage/data transmission, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The other additional element of: “a method of summarizing terms and conditions of a customer agreement, the method comprising” is an attempt to limit the claimed invention to a particular field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h)
7. Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical 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 (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, 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 (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05€ and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
8. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of “training an artificial intelligence of a computer system to generate a smart summarizer, said training comprising:”, “an issuer summary guideline with said smart summarizer, said issuer summary guideline comprising”, “integrating said smart summarizer with a webpage comprising: one or more T&C’s of a customer agreement; a selectable button to initiate said smart summarizer; and an optional search field to allow the input of a search term about which a T&C summary will be focused;”, “of said selectable button, using said smart summarizer to”, “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, - see claims 1 and 11 amount to no more than mere instructions in which to apply the judicial exception which does not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
The other additional elements of: “updating…to display said T&C summary” and “automatically generating and sending a cellular text message of said T&C summary to a customer requesting said T&C summary” were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate “receiving or transmitting data over a network” and “presenting offers and gathering statistics” are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions when claimed in a generic manner. Thus, at Step 2B the claim is ineligible.
9. Claims 2, 6-10, 12, 14-18 are dependent of claims 1 and 11.
Claims 2 and 12 recite “wherein said training further comprises: receiving a customer agreement comprising T&C’s; identifying said aspects of said T&C’s within said customer agreement; utilizing said smart summarizer to identify which of said aspects of said T&C’s to summarize: generating a T&C summary comprising a summary of each of said identified aspects of said T&C’s; publishing said T&C summary; receiving feedback on said T&C summary, wherein said feedback comprises: data for a web published T&C summary; and customer query data for said T&C summary; and repeating said developing of said smart summarizer with said data for said web published T&C summary and said customer query data for said T&C summary to obtain a modified smart summarizer; and revising, by the smart summarizer system, said new T&C summary based on customer feedback on said new T&C summary.” which serve to narrow how the abstract idea may be performed, but do not make the claimed invention any less abstract, claims 10 and 18 recite “further comprising: receiving, by the smart summarizer, a revised version of T&C’s; comparing, at said smart summarizer, said revised version of T&C’s with a most recent previous version of T&C’s; identifying, at said smart summarizer, revised aspects of said T&C’s; automatically creating, by the smart summarizer, a revised T&C summary further comprising a summary of said revised aspects of said T&C’s” which serve to narrow how the abstract idea may be performed, but do not make the claimed invention any less abstract Additionally, claims 6 and 14 recite “wherein said audible queries comprise call center logs.”, claims 7 and 15 recite “wherein said audible queries comprise call center audio”, claims 8 and 16 recite “wherein new customer agreement is a credit card agreement”, claims 9 and 17 recite “wherein new customer agreement is a brand loyalty program”, all serve to further describe the data and/or information recited in the abstract idea, but do not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Accordingly, when viewed individually and in combination with the claimed invention, the dependent claims do not add any additional elements that provide an inventive concept or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “At the last paragraph of page 13, the instant Office Action states, "Contrary to the remarks, the pending claims as disputed by applicant do not match the factual patterns discussed in the Core Wireless court decision. It is important for applicant to note while it would be acceptable for applicant to cite training materials or examples in support of an argument for finding eligibility in an appropriate factual situation, applicants should not be required to model their claims or responses after the training' materials or examples to attain eligibility. See MPEP 2106.07 Applicant respectfully submits there appears to be a misunderstanding with respect to the applied guidance (in Italic). The Office Action is arguing "the pending claims as disputed by applicant do not match the factual patterns."
The applied guidance does not support the Office Action's reasoning and instead countermands the Office provided logic. The cited portion provides the Applicant can cite training materials or examples, however, Applicant should not be required to model their claims or responses to attain eligibility. In other words, in direct contrast to the Office Action argument, the pending claims as disputed by Applicant are not required to match the factual patterns discussed. For at least this reason, Applicant respectfully submits the Examiner has erred by misapplying the cited portion of MPEP 2106.07.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits the arguments regarding Core Wireless, when properly analyzed in light of the correct interpretation of MPEP 2106.07 overcome the rejection under 35 USC101.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The previous Office Action established that Core Wireless was cited as an illustration of claims that were found eligible because they recited a specific improvement to computer display functionality. Conversely, the present claims do not recite a comparable technological improvement. Accordingly, the cited guidance does not support applicant’s position. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained
Applicant further argues “With respect to Step 2A prong 2, Similar to example 47 third claim, Applicant submits the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, and as such, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception.
Applicant respectfully submits the amended representative claim includes elements that are incapable of mental performance. e.g., elements "integrating said smart summarizer with a webpage comprising: one or more T&C's of a customer agreement; a selectable button to initiate said smart summarizer; and an optional search field to allow the input of a search term about which a T&C summary will be focused; in response to a selection of said selectable button, using said smart summarizer to create a T&C summary; and updating said webpage to display said T&C summary" AND "automatically generating and sending a cellular text message of said T&C summary to a customer requesting said T&C summary" cannot be performed mentally as the human mind cannot generate a webpage comprising: one or more T&C's of a customer agreement, a selectable button to initiate said smart summarizer, and an optional search field to allow the input of a search term about which a T&C summary will be focused; will not act in response to a selection of said selectable button; and display a web page.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remain ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two of the two-part analysis. In training example 47 claim 3, the BRI of the claim is a method that trains an ANN using input data and a selected back propagation algorithm and gradient descent algorithm; detects anomalies in network traffic using the trained ANN; determines that at least one detected anomaly is associated with at least one malicious network packet; then detects a source address associated with the detected malicious packet in real time; then drops the malicious packet in real time; and blocks future traffic from the detected source address.
The cited example is directed to a specific technological improvement, whereas the present claims are directed to applying an abstract idea with generic computing components. It is also important to note that the identified limitations under Prong One of the analysis (See pgs. 3-4 Non-Final) are steps that correspond to mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. The recited elements above, i.e., “integrating said smart summarizer with a webpage comprising: one or more T&C's of a customer agreement; a selectable button to initiate said smart summarizer; and an optional search field to allow the input of a search term about which a T&C summary will be focused;”, “of said selectable button, using said smart summarizer to” are all generic computer elements. Instructing one to "apply" an abstract idea and reciting no more than generic computer elements performing generic computer tasks does not make an abstract idea patent-eligible. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Applicant respectfully submits the claims improve the technical field and integrate the abstract idea into practical application by providing a user selectable interface that, when selected, replaces the original set of terms and conditions (which are typically so long and tedious they are ignored in full) with a focused summary. E.g., "An expression of the frustration caused by this information overload is often seen in text message responses or in comments to online forums when a person uses the response of "tl;dr" or "tldr" to indicate that something was "too long; didn't read." Legal language, such as terms and conditions associated with an account, can often be extremely lengthy and hard to decipher and thus can easily fall into the tl;dr category. Accordingly, many account holding customers (often referred to as simply "customers" or "customer" herein) do not read or else do not extract important information from the terms and conditions of customer agreements which they may be subject to as account holders of credit accounts, bank accounts, customer loyalty/reward accounts, and the like." (Applicant's Specification [0018]).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the courts have previously held offering a user the ability to select information to be displayed is one of the "most basic functions of a computer." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 The Applicant’s response indicates the asserted improvement here is in the presentation of the information, however, such an information-based improvement is not an improvement to a technical field or any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a) The Examiner asserts while the specification and claims purport to describe an improved user experience which allows the presentation of a focused summary, the limitations recited in the claimed invention do not improve a manner in which a user interface operates. The Specification [¶ 0031, 0064-0065] itself makes clear that the user interface limitations are generic and the user interface is being used in its ordinary or normal capacity to aid in carrying out the abstract idea. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “In Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018) the court held "While the generic idea of summarizing information was known, the claims were directed to a "particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices" that improved the efficiency of the electronic device over the prior art. Therefore, the claims were not directed to an abstract idea." For example, in Core the court found, "The claims disclose an improved user interface for electronic devices, particularly those with small screens. It teaches that the prior art interfaces had many deficits relating to the efficient functioning of the computer, requiring a user "to scroll around and switch views many times to find the right data/functionality;" and "The speed of a user's navigation through various views and windows can be improved because it "saves the user from navigating to the required application, opening it up, and then navigating within that application to enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated. Rather than paging through multiple screens of options, "only three steps may be needed from start up to reaching the required data/functionality." The court considered these aspects to be improvements in the functioning of computers, particularly those with small screens." (Emphasis Added).”
“Here, as in Core, and as shown in Figures 3A-5B and discussed in the associated text of Applicant's Specification, the claimed elements reduce the amount of navigation through various views and windows (e.g., as shown in Figure 3A and 5A) by automatically updating the information to a summarized format (e.g., Figures 3B and 5B respectively) once the selectable link is selected. By "integrating said smart summarizer with a webpage comprising: one or more T&C's of a customer agreement; a selectable button to initiate said smart summarizer; and an optional search field to allow the input of a search term about which a T&C summary will be focused". That is, the user is saved from navigating through a "set of terms and conditions 216A [is] typically hundreds if not thousands of words long, with multiple sections and many pages..." which "is very legalistic which might cause a customer to remark, "tl;dr." After receipt, smart summarizer 105 creates a short, plain English summary 226A of aspects which have been learned to be important through training of artificial intelligence 110." (Applicant's Specification [0036].” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. In Core Wireless the claims were found eligible because they recited a specific manner of displaying information that improved device operation, particularly small-screen devices, not merely because they presented summarized information. The present claims do not recite a comparable technological improvement. Instead they recite generating a summary of information and displaying the summary using generic computer elements described at a high level of generality. Any reduction in user effort results from the abstract idea of summarizing information rather than from a specific improvement to computer functionality or interface technology. The Applicant purports the claimed elements reduce the amount of navigation through various views and windows by automatically updating the information to a summarized format once the selectable link is selected. In the instant case, mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer system and artificial intelligence to summarize terms and conditions for a user, is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The claimed elements reflect the improvement, including the steps "integrating said smart summarizer with a webpage comprising: one or more T&C's of a customer agreement; a selectable button to initiate said smart summarizer; and an optional search field to allow the input of a search term about which a T&C summary will be focused; in response to a selection of said selectable button, using said smart summarizer to create a T&C summary; and updating said webpage to display said T&C summary" AND "automatically generating and sending a cellular text message of said T&C summary to a customer requesting said T&C summary". These steps reflect the improvement described in the Specification. Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Here, the response alleges the combination of steps reflect the improvement. The Examiner asserts that these features were previously considered and found ineligible, (See, pgs. 5-6 Non-Final) under Step 2A – Prong Two of the analysis. An improvement to computer functionality requires a specific technological solution, not merely using a computer to perform an abstract idea. Applicant only restates the limitations but does not discuss any further improvements to the functioning of a computer itself or any other technology or technical field. The claimed features describe the use of generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, rather than a technological improvement to computer functionality. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “As such, Applicant submits the elements of Claim 1 are sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Independent Claim 11 recites features similar to (yet possibly different from) the features identified above with respect to independent Claim 1. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the elements of Claim 11 are also sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least the reasons given above with respect to Claim 1. Claims 2 and 6-10 depend from Independent Claim 1 and recite additional features thereof. Claims 12 and 14-18 depend from Independent Claim 11 and recite additional features thereof. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits Claims 2, 6-10, 12, and 14-18 overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to Independent Claims 1 and 11.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments with respect to other independent and dependent claims 2, 6-12, and 14-18 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the limitations recited in any of the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Conclusion
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 EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626