DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claims 6, 13 and 14 have been amended. Claims 23 and 24 are new. Claims 2, 11, 15 and 21-22 were previously cancelled. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-14, 16-20 and 23-24 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/06/2026 has been entered.
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, 3-10, 12-14, 16-20 and 23-24 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.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-14 and 23 are directed towards methods for individualized curriculum of engagement (i.e., processes), which is a statutory category. Claims 16-20 and 24 are directed towards a system for user engagement (i.e., a machine), which is a statutory category. Since the claims are directed toward statutory categories, it must be determined if the claims are directed towards a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In the instant application, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites:
receiving from one or more computing devices at a point of interaction information about a user, wherein the information about the user obtained at the point of interaction includes information regarding at least one product or service obtained the user at the point of interaction;
generating using one or more servers, an individualized curriculum of engagement for the user based at least in part on the information about the user that is received from the one or more computing devices, wherein the individualized curriculum of engagement includes information tailored to the user based on the information received at the point of interaction;
providing a web client to the user; and
delivering using the one or more servers the individualized curriculum of engagement to the web client,
scheduling using the one or more servers, one or more deliveries of the individualized curriculum of engagement to the user, wherein the one or more deliveries of the individualized curriculum to the user comprises a first delivery of a first video to the user that is scheduled for delivery after the user has obtained the at least one product or service and a second delivery of a second video different from the first video based on expected pattern of usage of the at one product or service.
The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process and/or a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites a process that is performed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components/ fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The underlined limitations are not part of identified abstract idea (the mental process/ the method of organizing human activity) and are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claim 16 and its dependents Claims 17-20 and 24 (Group II) is identical as the abstract idea for Claims 1, 3-10, 12-14 and 23 (Group I), because the only difference between the claim groups is that they are directed towards different statutory categories.
Dependent Claims 3-10, 12-15, 17-20 and 23-24 include other limitations, for example, Claim 3 recites wherein the step of generating further comprises selecting content from a content management source based at least in part on the point of interaction, Claim 4 recites wherein in the step of generating, the individualized curriculum of engagement is further generated at least in part on an identity of an entity associated with the point of engagement, Claims 5, 15, 17 and 18 recites generating, based at least in part on the information, a personalized URL for the user, wherein the delivering further comprises sending the personalized URL to the user, Claims 6 and 20 recite wherein the individualized curriculum of engagement comprises a single webpage with a plurality of embedded videos, and wherein the embedded videos contain informational content related to the at least one of a product and a service for the user at the point of interaction, Claim 7 recites wherein the individualized curriculum of engagement further comprises access to a listing of other individualized curricula of engagement delivered to the user, Claim 8 recites wherein the individualized curriculum of engagement further comprises access to promotional information for at least one of a product and a service related to the point of interaction, Claim 9 recites wherein the individualized curriculum of engagement further comprises access to a live interaction interface that allows the user to receive information related to the point of interaction, Claim 10 recites wherein the individualized curriculum of engagement comprises a plurality of videos, wherein the plurality of videos contain informational content related to at least one of a product and a service for the user at the point of interaction, and wherein the delivering further comprises individually delivering the plurality of videos to the user, Claim 12 recites securing the information at the computing device before the step of sending the information, Claim 13 recites wherein the information about the user comprises: a name of the user; an email address of the user; and an identifier of a product related to the point of interaction for the user, Claim 14 recites wherein the information about the user comprises: an identifier of the user; an identifier of a drug prescribed to the user; an identifier of an insurance provider for the user; and an identifier of a pharmacy for the user, Claim 16 recites an input computing device configured to receive information about a user at a point of interaction and to send the information to one or more servers;384817-6302-9785.1Attorney Dkt No: 104019-01 10 the one or more servers configured to generate, based at least in part on the information received from the input computing device, an individualized curriculum of engagement for the user and to send the individualized curriculum of engagement to a user computing device; and the user computing device configured to receive the individualized curriculum of engagement from the one or more servers, Claim 19 recites wherein the one or more servers are configured to access a database of information regarding at least one of products and services related to the point of interaction in order to generate the individualized curriculum of engagement, and Claims 23 and 24 recite wherein a first personalized URL is delivered to the user via text or email, wherein selection of the first personalized URL causes the first video to be retrieved from one or more content management servers and displayed to the user, and wherein a second personalized URL is delivered to the user via text or email, wherein selection of the second personalized URL causes the second video to be retrieved from a content management server and displayed to the user, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1 and 16.
Furthermore, Claims 1, 3-10, 12-14, 16-20 and 23-24 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of computing devices and servers, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs [0008] and [0043] of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f);
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Furthermore, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs [0008] and [0043] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. servers, computing devices) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare).
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention delivers data in claims 5, 17 and 18, and transmits the data to a webspace over a network, for example the Internet; and
Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, in claims 6 and 20 the current invention recites storing video data in a database and/or electronic memory.
Dependent Claims 2-10, 12-14, 17-20 and 23-24 include other limitations, but none of these functions are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly represent no more than receiving or transmitting data over a network (e.g. the delivering personalized URL feature of dependent Claims 5, 17 and 18), storing and retrieving information in memory (e.g. the video feature of dependent Claims 6 and 20),
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1, 3-10, 12-14, 16-20 and 23-24 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 have been fully considered.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant asserts that the claim is not abstract because it recites “"scheduling using the one or more servers, one or more deliveries of the individualized curriculum of engagement to the user, wherein the one or more deliveries of the individualized curriculum of engagement to the user comprises a first delivery of a first video to the user that is scheduled for delivery after the user has obtained the at least one product or service and a second delivery of a second video different from the first video based on expected pattern of usage of the at least one product or service." Scheduling delivery of anything, including content as currently claimed, is abstract. This is normally done by a person using a computer. The use of server to carry out the scheduling does not preclude the limitation from the mental process category. While a server is used to schedule the delivery, it is not improved by the claimed invention, as it merely being used to apply the abstract idea of scheduling content delivery.
Additionally, even if it did not fall within the mental process category, it is still organizing human activity as it includes steps a person would take to deliver content to another.
With regard to Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant “submits that the claims, considered as a whole, integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application, which improves automated delivery of content in a particular manner” and that claim “rather specifies how a personalized curriculum of engagement is generated and how that curriculum is delivered (Remarks, page 10).” The additional elements recited in the claim include computing devices and servers, which is considered generic computer hardware use to implement the abstract idea. The remaining additional elements, including transmitting and storing data, recite insignificant extra-solution activity, which is well-understood, routine and conventional activity as indicated in the above rejection. These additional elements, both alone or in combination, do not result in a practical application of the recited abstract idea as they are recited at an “apply it” level or recite insignificant extra-solution activity. The main thrust of the claim is directed towards the abstract idea, mainly providing individualized information a user based on data collected during a point of interaction. Any improvement resulting from the claims is an improved abstract idea, not the additional elements, and therefore does not result in a practical application.
MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I) states limitations that the courts have found indicative of an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
There are not such limitations present in the instant application as the claimed invention is directed towards a business problem as indicated in the background, which discusses the business problem of costumer engagement after a purchase is made (Paragraphs [0002-0004]). There is no technical problem present or apparent from the instant disclosure even if the claims resulted in a technical solution.
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed
in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As indicated in the above rejection, the claim additional elements are recited at an “apply it” level as they are merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea or they recite insignificant extra-solution activity. The abstract idea cannot be used to integrate itself into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that “all pending claims recite specific improvements to prior systems, and thus integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application (Remarks, page 11).” Even if the claimed invention is an improvement over the prior art, it is still abstract. Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). See MPEP § 2106.05.
Therefore, the claims remain rejected as being directed to an abstract idea that does not result in a practical application or significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is (303)297-4782. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 MT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason Dunham can be reached on (571)272-8109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686