DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of February 5, 2026. The rejections are stated below. Claims 5-12 and 21-27 are pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments concerning 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant's argues “The Office Action oversimplified the claims by characterizing them as directed to "creating an image" and failed to account for the specific requirements of the claims”.
Examiner acknowledges the Federal Circuit's guidance in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) regarding careful analysis of claim limitations. However, the new 112 rejections identify substantive issues with the claim language that preclude a proper 101 analysis at this time. Specifically, claims 5 and 21 contain indefinite language ("based upon by transforming") and lack written description support for the "transforming" limitation.
4. Applicant's argues “The claimed invention improves security of mobile payment platforms and applications for conducting electronic transactions”.
While the specification describes potential security benefits 0031-0032, the claims themselves do not recite any structural or functional limitations that would effectuate such security improvements. The claims are directed to generating and displaying an electronic representation. The security benefits arise from potential uses of the electronic representation, which are not required by the claims. Absent claim limitations that implement the alleged security improvements, such benefits cannot render the claims patent-eligible. See Electrojet v. Carnival Corp., 2022 WL 1261553 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ("improvements" must be reflected in the claim limitations themselves).
5. Applicant's argues “the trained model performs a specific transformation that yields a new computer-generated visual element”.
Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient disclosure of what constitutes "transformation" of interaction data into a visual element, as explained in the 112(a) rejection above. Without a clear understanding of what the transformation entails, the Office cannot evaluate whether the transformation is sufficiently specific to integrate any abstract idea into a practical application. See BSG Tech LLC v. Buy seasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claim limitations must be evaluated based on what they require, not what they might achieve).
6. Applicant's argues “the Examiner failed to follow the USPTO's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the August 2024 Memorandum”.
Examiner has reviewed these guidance documents. Under Step 2A Prong One, the claims are directed to an abstract idea because they recite the concept of generating a representation of a user based on user activity which is a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships). See MPEP § 2106.04(a) (grouping abstract ideas). The addition of "computer-generated" and "trained model" does not remove the claim from the abstract idea grouping because these are tools used to implement the abstract idea. However, given the indefiniteness and lack of written description support, further 101 analysis is not possible at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 5-12 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of user profile interaction without significantly more.
9. Claim 5 is directed to the abstract idea of creating an image which is grouped under “organizing human activity… managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” (including social activities) in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04).
Claim 5 recites “a method, implemented in part by a processor of a service provider, comprising:
retrieving, by …, interaction data comprising attributes of one or more interactions between a user and the service provider or one or more third-party services integrated with the service provider;
… representation for a user profile based upon by transforming the interaction data into a …, wherein:
the … is trained using attributes associated with a set of existing user profiles associated with the service provider and corresponding interaction data of the set of existing user profiles, and
the … is generated without the user providing an input directed to selection of the electronic representation; and
… to display the … of the user profile”.
10. These limitations describe an abstract idea of user profile interaction and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Accordingly, claim 5 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
11. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements, e.g., processor, user device, dynamically generating, by the processor and using a trained model, an electronic representation …, transforming … into a computer-generated visual element, configuring, by the processor, a user interface of an electronic device … which do no more than link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment nor is there an improvement to technology. Therefore, claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
12. Further, as the additional elements of claim 5 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 5 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
13. Claim 21 also recite the abstract idea of idea of user profile interaction and corresponds to “organizing human activity… managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” (including social activities) step one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04). Claim 21 includes the additional elements of “a computer system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors, user device, dynamically generating, by the processor and using a trained model, an electronic representation …, transforming … into a computer-generated visual element, configure a user interface of an electronic device …”. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
14. Claim 12 recites “further comprising: determining, …; …, a publication time associated with the …; …, a mint time associated with the non-fungible token based on the blockchain data; …, time difference data based on the mint time and the publication time; and wherein the index data comprises the time difference data” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “determining, by the computer system, a web content item is associated with the digital resource, obtaining, by the computing system, web content item, determining, by the computer system, blockchain data, generating, by the computer system”. However, the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment they do not improve the improve the technology or technical field.
15. Claim 6 recites “wherein the interaction data corresponds to at least one of transaction data, merchant data, music data, or third-party data, and wherein the … model is further using at least one of graphical representations corresponding to the set of existing user profiles, demographic data associated with the set of existing user profiles, content corresponding to one or more music media accessed by the set of existing user profiles, social media activity associated with the set of existing users, or advertisements associated with merchants associated with the interaction data” which further define the abstract idea. The claim includes trained as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
16. Claim 7 recites “wherein the electronic representation of the user profile is at least one of a graphical element, textual element, video element, or auditory element, wherein when the … model generates a graphical element, the model is further configured to generate a visual attribute of the electronic representation for the user profile, the visual attribute comprising at least one of color, design element, text, or font” as additional elements. The claim includes trained as an additional element. However, the additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
17. Claim 8 recites “wherein configuring the user interface on the electronic device includes customizing an onboarding method for the user based on the electronic representation” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
18. Claim 9 recites “wherein the … for the user profile is useable as a payment instrument, the method further comprising: receiving, from a …, a payment request, wherein the payment request is associated with the …; accessing payment data associated with the user profile based on the payment request being associated with the …, wherein the payment data is embedded in the … or identifiable based on an association between the … and the user profile; and authorizing the payment request using the payment data” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “electronic representation, second electronic device” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
19. Claim 10 recites “further comprising initiating, by the …, generation of a non-fungible token based on the … representation of the user profile” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “processor and electronic” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
20. Claim 11 recites “further comprising: periodically monitoring, by …, new interaction data associated with the user; and updating, by …, the … in accordance with executing the model using the new interaction data” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “processor, the electronic representation, and model” as additional elements. However, the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
21. Claim 12 recites “wherein the … for the user profile is useable as a payment instrument, the method further comprising: receiving, from a …, a payment request, wherein the payment request is associated with the …; accessing payment data associated with the user profile based on the payment request being associated with the …, wherein the payment data is embedded in the … or identifiable based on an association between the … and the user profile; and authorizing the payment request using the payment data” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “electronic representation, second electronic device” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
22. Claim 22 recites “wherein the interaction data corresponds to at least one of transaction data, merchant data, music data, or third-party data, and wherein the … model is further … using at least one of graphical representations corresponding to the set of existing user profiles, demographic data associated with the set of existing user profiles, content corresponding to one or more music media accessed by the set of existing user profiles, social media activity associated with the set of existing users, or advertisement associated with merchants associated with the interaction data” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “trained” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
23. Claim 23 recites “wherein the … representation of the user profile is at least one of a graphical element, textual element, video element, or auditory element, wherein when the trained model generates a graphical element, the … model is further configured to generate a visual attribute of the … representation for the user profile, the visual attribute comprising at least one of color, item category, album cover attribute, design element, text, or font” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
24. Claim 24 recites “wherein … includes customizing an onboarding method for the user based on the … representation” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes configuring the user interface on the electronic device, electronic” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
25. Claim 25 recites “wherein the … for the user profile is useable as a payment instrument, the method further comprising: receiving, from a …, a payment request, wherein the payment request is associated with the …; accessing payment data associated with the user profile based on the payment request being associated with the …, wherein the payment data is embedded in the … or identifiable based on an association between the … and the user profile; and authorizing the payment request using the payment data” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “electronic representation, execution of the one or more computer-executable instructions further causing the one or more processors, second electronic device, electronic” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
26. Claim 26 recites “wherein … to initiate generation of a non-fungible token based on the … representation of the user profile” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “execution of the one or more computer-executable instructions further causing the one or more processors and electronic” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
27. Claim 27 recites “wherein … to initiate generation of a non-fungible token based on the … representation of the user profile” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “execution of the one or more computer-executable instructions further causing the one or more processors, electronic, and trained” as additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. And, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
28. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
29. Claims 5-12 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
30. Claims 5 and 21 each recite “by transforming the interaction data into a computer-generated visual element”. The term "transforming" suggests a conversion of the interaction data itself from one form to another such as converting numerical transaction data into pixel data. The specification describes the model analyzing interaction data and generating an electronic representation based on that analysis. See paragraphs [0022] ("The electronic representation can have attributes representative of the user's activity"), [0024] ("the model(s) may be trained to generate electronic representations for users that are representative of interactions of the users"), and [0085] ("the model may ingest the interaction data and then encode the ingested interaction data... The model may then use various techniques... to reconstruct the encoded data and to generate the electronic representations"). These descriptions contemplate generation based on interaction data, not transformation of interaction data. The specification does not provide any disclosure describing a process of transforming interaction data into a computer-generated visual element, distinct from merely generating an electronic representation based on interaction data. In other words, the algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the functions to be performed (MPEP 2181 IV: MPEP 2161 01 I).
31. Claims 6-12 and 22-27 are rejected as each depends on claims 5 and 21.
32. 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.
33. Claims 5-12 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
34. Claims 5 and 21 each recite “dynamically generating . . . an electronic representation for a user profile by transforming the interaction data into a computer generated visual element”. The term "transforming" is not defined by Applicant’s specification . The specification indicates that a model may "encode the ingested interaction data" [0085] and "reconstruct the encoded data and to generate the electronic representations" [0085]. It is unclear as to whether the transforming requires converting data from one format to another, applying mathematical operations to data values, mapping data attributes to visual parameters, or some other process. The limitation of "transforming the interaction data into a computer generated visual element" is indefinite because it does not inform persons skilled in the art, with reasonable certainty, what constitutes a transformation of data into a visual element versus other forms of data processing or rendering.
35. Claims 6-12 and 22-27 are rejected as each depends on claims 5 and 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached on 571-270-3602. 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 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.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 March 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights