DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 16 January 2026 and 12 February 2026.
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 February 2026 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 16 January 2026 and 12 February 2026, Applicant amended claims 1, 12, and 18.
Amendments to claims 1 – 7, 11, 12, and 16 – 19 are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection. Therefore, the 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims *** are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea and are therefore patent eligible. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains that there are abstract ideas still present, and that claims do not amount to significantly more. Applicant has now claimed rendering a user interface for a template. As there is no clear definition of rendering user interfaces in Applicant’s disclosure, Examiner refers to what is disclosed. The specification discloses rendering workflow templates for use in an interface or to be displayed on an interface, but the interface itself is not created, if that was intended by Applicant’s claims herein. Regardless, the claim to improvement of the workflow is an improvement to the abstract ideas or to the business method, not the technology or technical field on which it happens to be implemented. There is no improved interface claimed nor disclosed, so the reference in arguments to Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQGT, LLC is without merit. Optimizing user experiences is not the same as the improvement to the interface itself, as Applicant argues. An improvement to user experience is an example of improving the abstract idea by changing the abstract workflow. Applicant references ex parte Desjardins as well, but that has no bearing on Applicant’s claims as there is no claim to improvement in computers herein. Examiner maintains the position that the claims are properly rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The independent claims recite receiving data regarding a workflow of a user completing a task, assessing the data to identify attributes of the workflow that is expressed in a series of steps, analyzing the steps of the workflow to identify areas of improvement, generating augmentations from a plurality of technology fitments matched to the areas for improvement in the steps of the workflow including elements that communicate a status of fitments within the workflow, generating a user experience template, wherein content of the template is selected based upon at least an archetype for which the generating the augmentation from the plurality of technology fitments was performed, sending the augmentations formatted in the user experience template to a user for communicating to the user, and rendering interfaces for the user experience template for an optimized user experience that resolves the identified areas of improvement of the workflow based on feedback. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance section 2106 of the MPEP (hereinafter, MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method, the system, and the computer program product are directed to an eligible categories of subject matter. Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A prong 1 of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of determining steps and changing steps of a workflow, which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 through the subset of following rules or instructions. The limitations reciting the abstract idea in independent claims are receiving data regarding a workflow of a user completing a task, assessing the data to identify attributes of the workflow that is expressed in a series of steps, analyzing the steps of the workflow to identify areas of improvement, generating augmentations from a plurality of technology fitments matched to the areas for improvement in the steps of the workflow including elements that communicate a status of fitments within the workflow, generating a user experience template, wherein content of the template is selected based upon at least an archetype for which the generating the augmentation from the plurality of technology fitments was performed, sending the augmentations formatted in the user experience template to a user for communicating to the user, and rendering interfaces for the user experience template for an optimized user experience that resolves the identified areas of improvement of the workflow based on feedback.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to computer implementation, user device, desktop type device, mobile device, wearable device, voice interface device, virtual device, neural network, blockchain memory, cloud computing, Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, edge computing, 5G mobile communications, artificial intelligence model, hardware processor, memory, computer program product, and computer readable storage medium, to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. Rendering an interface, in view of Applicant’s disclosure, amounts to drawing or composing a workflow template for an interface to display.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: computer implementation, user device, desktop type device, mobile device, wearable device, voice interface device, virtual device, neural network, blockchain memory, cloud computing, Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, edge computing, 5G mobile communications, artificial intelligence model, hardware processor, memory, computer program product, and computer readable storage medium. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and it is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of selecting technology fitments by business sector by way of example, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA GURSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7am to 5pm EST.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/AMANDA GURSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625