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 .
RCE Acknowledgement
Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) dated 03/23/2026 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114, and the Applicant's RCE submission filed on 23 MARCH 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this instant application per RCE claim amendments and remarks filed on 03/23/2026. Only Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9, 12, 15 and 17-19 have been amended. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent claims reciting method, computing platform and non-transitory computer readable medium claims. Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are respective dependent claims.
This Office Action is a non-final rejection based on RCE claim amendments and remarks filed by the Applicant on 23 MARCH 2026 for its original application of 23 MARCH 2018 that is titled: “Method and Apparatus for Transmitting Transaction Data Using a Public Data Network”.
Accordingly, amended Claims 1-20 are now being rejected herein.
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.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant on 03/23/2026 are shown as bold and underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown, or may not be underlined when stricken through. Underlined amendments to the claims that are shown below are from previously submitted claim amendments by the Applicant.)
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent method, computing platform and non-transitory computer
readable medium claims respectively.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a method reciting a series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1 -- YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the limitations of: generating an initial product output for a product for a user; receiving authorization indicating that third-party data comprising historical travel data for a limited time period for the user is to be securely shared and used to determine an updated product output for the product; receiving the encrypted third-party data for the limited time period for the user; decrypting a portion of the encrypted third-party data to generate decrypted third party data; in response to a selection of the first option, decrypting a subsequent portion of the encrypted third-party data; and generating the updated product output using the decrypted third-party data in response to receipt of the first option without granting an enterprise organization access to the decrypted portion and decrypted subsequent portion of the encrypted third-party data, the enterprise organization corresponding to the updated product output. In other words, the claims describe computing platforms that utilize third party data for customized output generation (per Abstract). These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (to include hedging, insurance, mitigating risk, based on ‘purchase’ at least in para [0059], and ‘risk level’/’risk score’ at least in para [0054]); and/or commercial or legal interactions (to include agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, based on ‘insurance sales’ activity at least in para [0070]); and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (to include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, based on ‘what information is shared’ at least in para [0018] and ‘mobility information display commands’ at least in paras [0042]-[0047]), but for the recitation of generic computer/s and/or computer component/s such as the devices/ mobile devices. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1 -- YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: a cloud computing platform comprising one or more learning models, the cloud computing platform communicatively coupled to an enterprise server for an enterprise organization, the enterprise organization to control implementation of the product; transmitting instructions to cause a computing device communicatively coupled to the cloud computing platform to indicate the initial product output; the computing device encrypting the third-party data to generate encrypted third-party data; transmitting instructions to cause the computing device to display [[]] on at least one graphical user interface of the computing device of one or more graphical user interfaces including (i) a first option to maintain the authorization to use the third-party data for generation of the updated product output and (ii) a second option to deny the authorization to use the third-party data for generation of the updated product output and deleting the encrypted third-party data and the decrypted portion without decrypting a remainder of the encrypted data; generating via the one or more machine learning models of the cloud computing platform; and transmitting instructions to cause the computing device to indicate the updated product output for acceptance by the user via the at least one graphical user interface to generate upon acceptance the product for the user for implementation by the enterprise organization. These additional elements are considered extra-solution activities. The computing devices and graphical user interfaces recited in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of processing data. These generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements described above, were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these devices/ interfaces (processors) are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Also, paras [0064]-[0066] of the Applicant’s own Specification describe as follows ---
{“[0064] In some instances, the user device 102, cloud computing platform 103,enterprise server 104, or the like may notify the user after expiration of a predetermined period of time (e.g., six months, one year, or the like), and may request updated third party source data for use in computing an updated/refreshed customized product output. In these instances, the user device 102, cloud computing platform 103,enterprise server 104, or the like may apply one or more techniques similar to those described above with regard to generation of the customized product output to generate the updated customized product output. In these instances, the user device 102, cloud computing platform 103,enterprise server 104, or the like may monitor for any lifestyle changes corresponding to the user (e.g., a new baby, a marriage, or the like) that may be relevant to the generation of the updated customized product output, and may apply these lifestyle changes in the generation of the updated customized product output. ……………………………………………………………………
[0065] It should be understood that the steps described in the illustrative event sequence may
be performed in any order without departing from the scope of the disclosure. Furthermore, it should be understood that the above described techniques may be applied to several additional or alternative embodiments. For example, rather than uploading a processing engine to the cloud computing platform 103, the enterprise server 104 may send the processing engine directly to the user device 102 for local processing (e.g., if computing power, storage capacity, or the like are sufficient for processing). In this embodiment, because all processing is performed locally on the user device 102, third party source data need not be shared with the enterprise server 104 or the cloud computing platform 103, which may result in increased security. In some instances, the enterprise server 104 may send the processing engine to the cloud computing platform 103 in some instances and to the user device 102 in others based on an amount of processing power needed to generate a particular customized product output. For example, if an amount of data to be processed in performing the customized product output exceeds a predetermined threshold, the enterprise server 104 may send the processing engine to the cloud computing platform 103, which may have more processing power than the user device 102. However, if the amount of data to be processed in performing the customized product output does not exceed the predetermined threshold, the enterprise server 104 may send the processing engine to the user device 102 for local processing, which may be more secure than the cloud computing platform 103. In some instances, the processing may be distributed between cloud computing platform 103 and the user device 102. …………………….
[0066] As an additional and/or alternative embodiment, rather than sending the third party source data and uploading the processing engine to the cloud computing platform 103, the third party source data may be sent to the enterprise server 104 for processing. In these instances, the third party source data may be encrypted as described above, sent to the enterprise server 104, processed, and subsequently deleted once processing is complete (e.g., as described above with regard to the cloud computing platform 103). Accordingly, customized product outputs may be generated by the user device 102, the cloud computing platform 103, and/or the enterprise server 104 without departing from the scope of the disclosure.”}---
and indicate that the concept described by the extra-solution additional elements is conventional. Similarly, prior art US Pub. No. 2013/ 0268357 filed by Heath, Stephan (hereinafter “Heath”) teaches about added claim limitations about --- {“the computing device encrypting the third-party data to generate encrypted third-party data; receiving the encrypted third-party data; decrypting at least a portion of the encrypted third-party data to generate decrypted third party data;”}; as disclosed in Heath’s Abstract {“system using encryption technologies and/or filters to access data, encrypt and/or decrypt data, sync data, secure data storage and/or process data using cloud technology across many different networks and/or fiber optic communications from an endpoint accessed through multiple devices, ………
tracking and/or analysis of a user's personal data by a third party and/or for generating relevant advertising, mobile, internet social messaging, internet posted promotions or offers for products and/or services.”} as well as paras [0002], [0007], [0009] & [0014] with similar disclosure, plus multiple paras [0047], [0068]-[0073], [0121], [0140], [0161], [0171], [0173]-[0174], [0201]-[0202], [0204]-[0205], [0210], [0252], [0258], [0261]-[0262] and [0371] in Description of the Heath reference disclose similar limitations about “encrypting data and decrypting data third party data”. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer option 3.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, (to include preliminary claim amendments,) the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent computing platform Claim 9 and independent non-transitory computer readable medium Claim 17, which perform the steps similar to those of the independent method Claim 1. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent method Claims 2-8, further narrow the independent method Claim 1 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., requesting the historical travel data; monitoring via the cloud computing platform an application of the enterprise application on a user device associated with the user to identify application data[[for an insurance package as the product and the updated product output is a second quote for the insurance package as the product; send, to a user device associated with the user, one or more commands directing display of an additional product recommendation ……; wherein the initial product output comprises a quote for vehicle insurance, the additional product recommendation comprises an indication that a quote for life insurance ……; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 1. Similarly, dependent computing platform Claims 10-16 and dependent non-transitory computer readable medium Claims 18-20 also further narrow their respective independent Claims 9 and 17 respectively, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, said Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's RCE remarks (on pages 12-23) and claim amendments dated 23 MARCH 2026 with respect to the rejection of amended Claims 1-20 have been carefully considered, but they are not persuasive and do not put the claims in a condition for Allowance. Thus, the rejection of amended Claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 as described above, is being maintained herein with some modifications in this Office Action, where needed to provide clarification in response to the Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks of 03/23/2026.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s 03/23 arguments that --- {“…… the improved graphical user interface in Core Wireless was found eligible as the claims were (1) precisely directed to the type of data for display and (2) how to display it to improve upon user interfaces and increase the efficiency of using mobile devices.”}. In response, Examiner notes that the RCE claims listing of 03/23/2026 does not recite any limitation/s in it that “increase the efficiency of using mobile devices”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments of 03/23/2026 about Prong One, Examiner notes that upon reviewing the Specification and the claim as whole, independent claim 1 (exemplary) is at least directed to one of the ineligible “certain methods of organizing human activity” that include “fundamental economic principles or practices”, and “commercial or legal interactions”, and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” as described in para 7 above (for 101 rejection). Together the steps in exemplary Claim 1 , describe computing platforms that utilize third party data for customized output generation. Thus, like the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice, and the concept of hedging in Bilski, the concept of “generating a set of instructions sequences based on certain criteria from a user for trading financial instruments” recited in exemplary independent Claim 1 “is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” Accordingly, it is clear that exemplary independent Claim 1 recites fundamental economic practices and/or commercial transactions that, under the Revised Guidance, fall under the category of abstract ideas related to “certain methods of organizing human activity.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, independent Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
In response to Applicant’s arguments of 03/23/2026 about Prong Two, Examiner notes that under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea --- see MPEP 2106.05(f).
In response to the Applicant’s RCE arguments of 03/23/2026 against the rejection under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, Examiner clarifies that the instant application is nothing more than an improvement of an abstract idea, wherein using technology/ computers to execute an abstract idea is at most an improvement to the abstract idea.
In response to Applicant’s arguments of 03/23/2026 that the instant application is similar to Claim 1 of Example 40, and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Said Claim 1 of said Example 40 was deemed eligible not by mere “when the collected network delay, packet loss, or jitter is greater than the predefined threshold”; rather, it is about --- “the combination of additional elements of collecting at least one of network delay, packet loss, or jitter relating to the network traffic passing through the network appliance, and collecting additional Netflow protocol data relating to the network traffic when the collected network delay, packet loss, or jitter is greater than the predefined threshold. …… Specifically, the method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance; and the collected data can then be used to analyze the cause of the abnormal condition; and this provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring.” Thus, Example 40, Claim 1 does not apply to the currently claimed invention. In instant application, the claims of 03/23/2026 do not recite “network delay”, nor “packet loss” nor “jitter” when compared said Example 40, Claim 1 as noted above. Lastly, Examiner notes that said Example 40, Claim 2 was found to be ineligible (instant application’s claims) for overcoming the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments of 03/23/2026 in citing similarity to Example 42 is non-persuasive, and Examiner respectfully disagrees; because the claims at issue in Example 42 are readily distinguishable over the instant application’s claims. In Example 42, Claim 1 the claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. The instant claims do not attempt to solve an unconventional technological solution. Using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea and the way the information is processed does not make it less abstract. The courts found that “… if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on …… a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358. The claimed invention does not indicate that specialized computer hardware is necessary to implement the claimed systems, similar to the claims at issue in Alice Corp. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (determining that the hardware recited in the claims was “purely functional and generic,” and did not “offer [] a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers”).
In response to the Applicant’s arguments of 03/23/2026 claiming that the instant application’s claims are similar to Example 41 of Office’s 101 web-site, and Examiner respectfully disagrees. For example, but not limited to, Example 41 of the Office’s web-site titled “Cryptographic Communications” states for that invention {“the Applicants have invented a method for establishing cryptographic communications using an algorithm to encrypt a plaintext into a ciphertext. The invention includes at least one encoding device and at least one decoding device, which are computer terminals, and a communication channel, where the encoding and decoding devices are coupled to the communication channel. The encoding device is responsive to a precoded message-to-be-transmitted M and an encoding key E to provide a ciphertext word C for transmission to a particular decoding device. The message-to-be-transmitted is precoded by converting it to a numerical representation which is broken into one or more blocks MA of equal length. This precoding may be done by any conventional means.”}, Examiner notes that neither the Claims of 03/23/2026 nor the Specification (of the instant application) recite any phrases about encoding, decoding, precoding, cryptographic, ciphertext, etc., and thus, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
NOTE: Examiner notes that the previous Responses to Arguments from more than one previous Office Action/s are incorporated from the previous Office Actions as recited in full here, but such previous Responses have not been retained herein for brevity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is
responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
PSA Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/SANJEEV MALHOTRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights