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 .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on May 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. No claims have been added or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending and rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory patent ineligible subject matter. (See, Alice and MPEP §2106).
In sum, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. (MPEP §2106)
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter) (MPEP §2106.03). Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 17-20), a machine (claims 1-8) and a manufacture (claims 9-16). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. (MPEP §2106)
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. (MPEP §2106.04). Here, the independent claims, at their core, recite the following respective abstract ideas:
receiving,…, one or more questions from a customer in a….;
associating the one or more questions with one or more categories of subjects with at least one category identifier (ID) and at least one credit subject ID;
accessing, by the chatbot model, a database comprising a customer profile associated with the customer to store indications of the at least one category ID and the at least one credit subject ID in a gaps data structure in the customer profile, wherein the gaps data structure comprises a credit subject ID field, a category ID field, a correct quiz answer count field, an incorrect quiz answer field, and a date and time field;
storing indications of the at least one category ID and the at least one credit subject ID in a gaps data structure in a customer profile;
determining correct answers for the one or more questions from the customer one or more credit profile factors associated with the customer or one or more credit history factors associated with the customer, or both;
presenting,…, the correct answers to the customer, wherein the correct answers include a credit profile associated with the customer, a credit history associated with the customer, or a combination thereof;
accessing, by a quiz model, the database to identify a correct quiz answer count, an incorrect answer count, and a data and time associated with the correct quiz answer count and the incorrect answer count in the gaps data structure for the at least one category identifier ID and the at least one credit subject ID;
selecting,…, one or more quiz questions from a set of quiz questions, for a quiz for the customer from a set of quiz questions based on the correct quiz answer count, the incorrect answer count and the data and time associated with the correct quiz answer count and the incorrect answer count for the at least one category identifier ID and the at least one credit subject ID;
presenting,…,the quiz to the customer with the one or more quiz questions;
receiving,…, customer answers to the one or more quiz questions from the customer, wherein at least one answer comprises a chat text in a written answer format;
predicting,…, a probability that the chat text is a correct answer to one or more quiz questions;
determining, based on the customer answers to the one or more quiz questions and the correct answers to the one or more question, the correct quiz answer count and the incorrect answer count, wherein the correct quiz answer count is a count of a number of the one or more quiz questions answered correctly and the incorrect answer count is the number of the one or more quiz questions answered incorrectly;
determining a date and time associated with the correct quiz answer count and the incorrect answer count;
determining a credit subject ID and a category ID associated with each of the customer answers;
updating the correct quiz answer count, the incorrect answer count, and the date and time corresponding to each combination of the credit subject ID and the category ID associated with the customer answers, in the gaps data structure, wherein the credit subject ID identifies a specific subject of the subjects that is associated with the correct answer count and the incorrect answer count and the category ID identifies a category of the credit subject associated with the credit subject ID;
providing,…, correct quiz answers based on the credit profile and the credit history associated with the customer;
determining whether an earned reward or incentive is associated with the customer answers based on the correct quiz answer count and the incorrect answer count…
Here, the respective recited abstract ideas fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (MPEP §2106.04), to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes the sub-category of commercial interactions involving sales and/or marketing activities or behaviors (e.g., in the claims: receiving and processing customer information related to one or more credit subject related to user sales/purchase activities, including receiving various answers from a user in response to various quiz questions based on a user profile and determining a probability of whether the answer is correct/incorrect based on analysis of various data – See e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 002-007 and 036).
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 the recited additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application. (i.e., whether they provide a technological solution). (MPEP §2106.04) Here, the recited additional elements, such as: a “processor,” a “model,” “circuitry,” “chatbot,” “communication interface,” “graphical user interface”, and a “memory” or a “storage medium” storing executable instructions to accomplish various recited functions, do not amount to an inventive concept since the claims are simply using each of these additional elements, which are recited in the claims at a high degree of generality, as a tool to carry out the recited abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer, using a memory device and/or a database, on a data or communication network, on a display device or user interface, or on another computing device listed above, and/or via software programming, where the additional elements are not being technologically improved but simply perform generic computer data receipt and processing/analysis steps, data storage and communication steps, and/or outputting/displaying steps such as those typically used in a general purpose computer, a computing system, a display or user interface, and/or a computer or communication network. Thus, the claims do not provide an integration into a practical application. Independent claims 1 and 9 are nearly identical to claim 17 so the same analysis applies to these claims as well.
The independent claims also include one or more additional element limitation that is/are simply being used to carry out insignificant extra-solution activity recited in the independent claims, which activity is beyond the abstract idea recited therein and is only tangentially related thereto and does not provide a technological improvement (i.e., an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application). (MPEP §2106.05(g)). Here, each of the independent claims include the additional element limitation of:
“causing transmission of a communication to the customer by circuitry of a communication interface to identify or memorialize an earned reward or incentive.”
Applicant’s disclosure suggests that the additional element limitation simply requires that various rewards or incentives may be sent and presented to the user for taking the quiz, which rewards or incentives can be transmitted to a user interface for display on a user device. (See e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 027, 050 and 085). However, no technological improvement to a user interface or user interface circuitry or user device is discussed in the specification as being provided, nor do the claims provide same.
Under the Step 2B analysis, it is determined whether the recited additional elements amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed. (i.e., provide an inventive concept). (MPEP §2106.05) Here, the recited additional elements, identified above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, do not amount to an inventive concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, where the additional elements are not being technologically improved, but rather, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer, using a memory device and/or a database, on a data or communication network, or on another computing device listed above, and/or via software programming, where the additional elements are specified at a high level of generality as simply facilitating and/or performing generic computer data receipt and processing/analysis steps, data inputting steps, data storage and communication steps, and/or data outputting/displaying steps such as those typically used in a general purpose computer, a computing system, a display or user interface, and/or a computer or communication network, where the additional elements are being used in the claims to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved, and therefore do not provide something “significantly more.” (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.)
As determined above in Step 2, Prong 2, the independent claims also include one or more additional element limitation that is/are simply being used to carry out insignificant extra-solution activity recited in the independent claims, which activity is beyond the abstract idea recited therein and is only tangentially related thereto. (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(g)). The additional element limitation is as follows:
“causing transmission of a communication to the customer by circuitry of a communication interface to identify or memorialize an earned reward or incentive.”
The additional element limitation of the independent claims identified here is simply carrying out one or more extra-solution activity/functionality that is well-known, routine or conventional for a computer, a computing system, a computing device, including associated displays and/or user interfaces, for displaying data) (See e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 027, 050 and 085); See also, MPEP §2106.05(d)II.) No technological improvement to a user interface or user interface circuitry or a user device is discussed in the specification, nor do the claims provide same.
The dependent claims simply further refine and limit the abstract idea recited by the independent claims, from which these claims respectively directly or indirectly depend, where the abstract idea is described above.
Claims 2, 3, 10 and 11 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring that a reward be offered to the user and processed for participating in the question session and/or for answering questions correctly, which is a type of a marketing practice, which is an abstract idea, and these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05).
Claims 4, 6, 12, 14, 18 and 19 simply further refine the recited additional element limitation of storing information related to the user, or providing information related to certain categories of subject matter to the recited machine learning model additional element to be used to select additional question for the user. As stated above in the 101 analysis of the independent claims, simply storing information in a database or data structure is not making a technological improvement to the database or data structure, but rather, is simply implementing a data storing function in a general sense, which is all that is required by Applicant’s specification. Additionally, applicant’s specification does not discuss any technical problem being solved by providing information related to certain subject matter categories to a machine learning engine. The specification simply describes several well-known types of machine learning engines/models and their possible use in the invention without describing any technological improvement being provided. (See e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 053-061). The use of the machine learning engine additional element is simply being used to carry out the recited abstract idea of the claims, using certain data.
Claims 5, 13 and 16 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring that the user questions are selected based on analysis of certain user-related data, such as the user’s prior responses and/or a correctness of those prior responses in combination with a level of difficulty for a subsequent question, which is simply use of certain type of data to be analyzed for selecting a subsequent question for the user, and these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Claims 7, 8, 15 and 20 simply further refine the abstract idea by requiring that certain user response data is analyzed to determine a subsequent question for the user, which is simply providing a type of data for analysis to carry out the abstract idea, and these claims do not add any element or feature that provides an integration into a practical application by providing a technological solution to a technological problem or by technologically improving any recited additional element (which is simply being used to carry out the abstract idea as a “tool” under Step 2A, Prong 2), or include any element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). (See MPEP §§2106.04, 2106.05)
Thus, neither the independent claims nor the dependent claims, viewed individually and as a whole, including consideration of all the limitations of each claim viewed both individually and in combination, add any additional element or provide any subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter, nor do the claims provide something significantly more than the recited abstract idea to which the claims are directed.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments filed on May 26, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments (Amendment, Pgs. 13-19) concerning the prior rejection of the claims under 35 USC §101, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive for the following reasons. Under the prior and current 101 analysis, the claims recite and are directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea, without something significantly more, for the reasons given above after consideration of the claimed features and elements. The abstract idea has been restated above in the 101 rejection in view of the amended claims.
Applicant argues that the “Applicant argues that, based on the amended independent claims, claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims provide a technical solution to address a technical problem of education of customers arising out of the ubiquitous use of chatbots for interaction with customers.” (See, Amendment, Pg. 13). Applicant cites and discusses various cases in arguing that the claims provide some technological improvement to a technological problem, however, since January 2019 the Office is obliged to follow various patent ineligibility guidance in analyzing an Alice 101 rejection which has been memorialized in MPEP §2106 for at least several years, and not case law. The Office has followed the MPEP guidance in determining the 101 rejection of the claims, as indicated in the prior Office action. Therefore, the Office will not address directly the cases cited, but will rely on its adherence to the MPEP §2106 guidance. Applicant argues that “Applicant argues that the processes described in the claimed embodiments describe a particular process that utilizes a particular data structure (the gaps data structure), a particular graphical user interface, and a particular combination of models (chat model, quiz model, and machine learning model), to provide the technical solution for educating the customer based on gaps in the knowledge of the customer with particular education based techniques. Applicant argues that the quiz logic circuitry shown in, e.g., FIG. IA, illustrates a particular combination of models that operate in conjunction with a database data structure, such as the gaps data structure shown in FIG. IF, to improve chatbot technology.” (See, Amendment, Pg. 14). However, merely tracking the incorrect guesses of a user is not a technological improvement. It’s merely a form of data gathering to see what additional questions to ask based on a given user response.
As acknowledged by Applicant (See, Amendment, Pg. 14) and as described in the specification (See e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 2, 3 and 5), the claims are solving a problem for user interaction with credit-related issues. The claims may indeed provide a new and improved abstract idea that involves chatbot interactions with potential customers regarding answering credit-related questions involving credit-related issues, however, the claims provide an abstract idea nonetheless. The CAFC has held that “a claim for a new [novel] abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” (See e.g., SAP America, Inc. v Investpic, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2018) slip opinion at 2-3, citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also, the “chatbot” that is included in the limitations is an additional element that is merely being used to implement the abstract idea noted above.
Use of machine learning to analyze various user input and determine various quiz questions for the user and analysis of user profile data to determine a category of credit/financial related questions for the user does not provide a technological solution, since the machine learning model or engine is not itself being technologically improved, but rather, is simply recited at a high degree of generality to simply carry out various data analysis of the recited abstract idea, including determining correct or incorrect user answers to questions presented to the user regarding the user’s inputs for credit-related subjects in order to ultimately provide the user with a credit-related product, which is a commercial interaction with the customer. The claims are directed to helping the customer obtain a credit-related product best suited for the customer, and thus are directed to the abstract idea. (See, the 101 rejection and analysis, above)
Therefore, for these reasons and the reasons given above, the rejection of these claims under 35 USC §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Amit Patel whose telephone number is (313) 446-4902. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 8 AM - 6 PM EST. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights