DETAILED ACTION
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed September 5, 2025, are responsive to the office action mailed June 5, 2025. Claims 1-20 were previously pending and claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20, have been amended. Claims 1-20 are therefore currently pending and considered in this office action.
Pertaining to objection to specification in the previous office action
The specification was objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. The amendment has rendered moot this objection and it is withdrawn.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 112 in the previous office action
Claims 1-20 were 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 amendment has overcome this ground of rejection of these claims.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 1-7 are directed to a process, claims 8-14 are directed to a machine, and claims 15-20 are directed to a manufacture. All claims are therefore within statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“obtaining … training data relating to prior purchase transactions corresponding to an electronic system, the training data including attribute data for the prior purchase transactions derived from respective operation submission pages presented by respective interfaces ... in respective operation submission flows of the prior purchase transactions; extracting … one or more features of the attribute data from the training data, the one or more features associated with a negative user action associated with at least one of the prior purchase transactions; training … a prediction model based at least on the extracted one or more features from the training data; in a flow of a real-time purchase transaction, evaluating with the prediction model, using the extracted one or more features associated with the negative user action, a user interface to be provided to … a user … to derive a behavior score indicative of a probability that the purchase transaction will result in the negative user action of a user … in relation to the real-time purchase transaction; based on the behavior score, causing a dynamic modification of the user interface to be provided … during the flow of the real-time purchase transaction, the dynamic modification of the user interface including insertion in the flow of the real-time purchase transaction of a first intervention to reduce the probability that the real-time purchase transaction will result in the negative user action of the user … in relation to the real-time purchase transaction; causing the dynamically modified user interface to be presented …, the user completing the real-time purchase transaction via the dynamically modified user interface; and following the completion of the real-time purchase transaction, providing to the user a second intervention to reduce a predicted probability that the user undertakes a subsequent user action that would negatively impact the completion of the real-time purchase transaction.” Claim 1.
A careful analysis of the above limitations, each on its own and all together combined, results in the conclusion that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they altogether simply recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract idea falls within the grouping of abstract ideas described as certain methods of organizing human activity, for example commercial interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). See MPEP 2106.04(a); Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims must therefore be analyzed under the second prong of Eligibility Step 2 (Step 2A2; MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step2A2) we must identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if there are any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step 2A2. The additional elements in the present claims are a server, an electronic system, a and a user device and its interface. These additional elements have been considered individually, in combination, and altogether as a whole together with the functions they perform, e.g., the electronic system is not identified with any specificity and the recitations do not identify any particular operation performed by said electronic system. It is used only to describe the origin of data obtained by the server and can therefore not be interpreted as a particular device performing any operation that would integrate abstractions into a practical application. The interface and user device are similarly recited only as the general source and destination of data transmissions. Limitations associated with those elements are recited only as general abstractions rather than with any technical specificity and therefore there is no integration presented in the claims. The server is recited as “obtaining,” “extracting,” and “training,” data and again these functions are not recited with any technological specificity but instead only as generally descriptive abstractions. The server operations are recited only in terms of the intended results of functionally nonspecific activities and therefore does not integrate any of the recited ideas, such as the “prediction model” into a practical application. These additional elements altogether do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using generic computer components. The substantive process is recited only by descriptions of abstract intended results of steps without indicating any particular technological acts performed by any device or structural element to perform the steps or otherwise obtain the intended results. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, they do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, they do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, and they fail to apply or use the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
If the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims. Claimed elements that are not abstract are identified as noted above, and the method itself is described only by way of the intended results of unidentified activities, without reference to any particular specific technological actions performed by any particularly identified machines, and without reference to its use in conjunction with any particular item of manufacture.
The claims do not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although the additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the claim are mere props supporting instructions to implement abstract ideas on computers. MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims invoke computers or other machinery merely as tools to perform an abstract process. Simply adding general purpose computers or computer components to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). The elements therefore fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the use of the surrounding technology. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h).
Finally, it is reiterated that the remaining dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, do not contribute any additional elements other than those already discussed and do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas that further describe the identification and manipulation of data used in implementing the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one.").
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite an abstract idea without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra..
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same analysis.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of potentially allowable subject matter:
The independent claims recite inter alia
“obtaining, at a server, training data relating to prior purchase transactions corresponding to an electronic system, the training data including attribute data for the prior purchase transactions derived from respective operation submission pages presented by respective interfaces of the electronic system in respective operation submission flows of the prior purchase transactions; extracting, by the server, one or more features of the attribute data from the training data, the one or more features associated with a negative user action associated with at least one of the prior purchase transactions; training, by the server, a prediction model based at least on the extracted one or more features from the training data; in a flow of a real-time purchase transaction, evaluating with the prediction model, using the extracted one or more features associated with the negative user action, a user interface to be provided to an interface of a user device to derive a behavior score indicative of a probability that the purchase transaction will result in the negative user action of a user of the user device in relation to the real-time purchase transaction; based on the behavior score, causing a dynamic modification of the user interface to be provided to the interface of the user device during the flow of the real-time purchase transaction, the dynamic modification of the user interface including insertion in the flow of the real-time purchase transaction of a first intervention to reduce the probability that the real-time purchase transaction will result in the negative user action of the user device in relation to the real-time purchase transaction; causing the dynamically modified user interface to be presented at the user device, the user completing the real-time purchase transaction via the dynamically modified user interface; and following the completion of the real-time purchase transaction, providing to the user a second intervention to reduce a predicted probability that the user undertakes a subsequent user action that would negatively impact the completion of the real-time purchase transaction.” Claim 1.
The most closely applicable prior art has been previously introduced and distinguished by amendment and argument during the course of prosecution. The most closely applicable prior art not previously discussed are Minnis et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0201038 A1), Cosyn et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0206271 A1), Kim (Pub. No. US 2018/0225685 A1, Garcia-Martinez (Pub. No. US 2014/0040010 A1), Aganovic et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0095756 A1), and Perlich et al., (Non-Patent Literature article cited as item U in the accompanying form PTO-892).
Minnis discloses dynamic modification of web page in response to a user based on behavior of that user, but does not alone or in combination with any other known references, disclose, anticipate or fairly and reasonably render obvious the above noted limitations in combination.
Cosyn teaches using machine learning to identify negative learning behavior by extracting features from a student profile and sounds an alarm when negative learning behavior is indicated. Cosyn but does not alone or in combination with any other known references, disclose, anticipate or fairly and reasonably render obvious the above noted limitations in combination.
Kim teaches prediction of a likelihood of two competing parties entering into a business relationship using assembly of features into vectors using positive and negative feedback whereas positive feedback is associated with users entering a business relationship and negative feedback is associated with them not entering a relationship. Kim however does not alone or in combination with any other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations presently claimed in combination as recited above.
Garcia-Martinez teaches determining content to present to a user based on previous positive and negative sentiment regarding one or more topics embodied within the content object, but does not alone or in combination with any other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations presently claimed in combination as recited above.
Aganovic teaches optimization of a web user interface based on behavioral feedback with motivation to encourage particular activities. Aganovic however does not alone or in combination with any other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations presently claimed in combination as recited above.
Perlich teaches using machine learning to develop targeted advertising based on previous user interactions, but does not disclose modifying an interface to avoid a negative user response as recited above therefore does not alone or in combination with any other known references, teach, suggest, anticipate, disclose, nor otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the limitations presently claimed in combination as recited above.
In light of the above and examiner’s overall review of the prior art it is examiner’s conclusion that the body of prior art currently known to the examiner does not alone or in combination disclose, anticipate, or otherwise fairly and reasonably render obvious the above noted features of the present method. It should be noted that this conclusion is based on the presence of all claimed features as they operate in conjunction rather than solely on any one feature or isolated group of features.
The most relevant applicable and nonduplicative prior art having been previously introduced, addressed, and distinguished, by amendment and argument during the course of prosecution, it is examiner’s position that together with the above the record is clear with regard to the reasons for allowability of the claimed invention over the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571.272.6764. 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.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 December 2, 2025