DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications filed October 14, 2025. Claims 1, 5, 10–11, 14, and 18 are amended. Claims 1–20 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 14, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claims 1–13 and 18–19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 1–13 and 18–19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
With respect to the previous rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. More particularly, Applicant asserts that the claimed elements reduce network traffic by filling values using the look-alike model. Examiner disagrees. Examiner submits that identifying and filling data gaps amounts to an operational choice in the business process that does not improve any of the related technology. More particularly, filling gaps in the data recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the reasons stated below and does not improve the recited computing elements, including the processing system and memory system, because the claimed technical elements operate conventionally within the scope of the claims and in view of Applicant’s Specification. Further, although the claims may result in fewer user interactions and data requests when confidence values are above the threshold, such improvements embody improvements in the business process rather than a technical improvement in the operation of the recited computer elements because the technical elements operate conventionally, and as noted by Applicant, the system may increase user interactions and data requests when confidence values are below the threshold.
To the extent that Applicant asserts that the claimed elements cannot recite a mental process, Examiner disagrees and notes that Applicant has not presented any arguments or rationale underpinning in support of Applicant’s assertion. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
With respect to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered and are persuasive. More particularly, Applicant’s remarks on pages 12–13 of the Response are persuasive. Accordingly, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
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 non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “receiving a request and request data associated with a user”; “analyzing the request data to identify a primary offer associated with the request”; “accessing a look-alike model to determine at least one secondary offer based on one or more of: the request, the request data, and the primary offer, wherein the look-alike model comprises learned associations between values of data sets to group user data based on a geographic area of the user”; “identifying one or more data gaps in the request data used to generate the at least one secondary offer”; “determining one or more confidence values of the look-alike model based on a number of data values and relative age of the data values of the look-alike model”; “filling the one or more data gaps based on associated values from the look-alike model having the one or more confidence values above a threshold to generate a data set”; “prompting the user to answer a question set to fill the one or more data gaps based on associated values from the look-alike model having the one or more confidence values less than the threshold to generate the data set”; “receiving the at least one secondary offer”; “providing the primary offer for presentation to the user”; and “providing the at least one secondary offer for presentation to the user.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity for commercial interactions related to advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors because the elements describe a process for providing offers to a user. Further, the elements for “analyzing”, “to determine”, “identifying”, “determining”, “providing”, and “providing” recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 14 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 14 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–13 and 15–20 further describe the process for providing offers to a user and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–13 and 15–20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a network interface, a web server, a processing system, a memory system, a network, one or more server systems, a user interface, and an element for “transmitting”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step for “transmitting” is an insignificant extrasolution activity to the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claim 14 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 14 further includes a computer program product comprising a storage medium and a computer, the additional elements, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 14 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 3, 6, 8, 10–13, 16, and 19–20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include “updating a machine-learning component” (claims 3, 6, 16, and 19), “tuning” a model (claims 8 and 20), “a machine-learning component” (claim 10), “a web page [that] comprises one or more embedded interfaces to access an application programming interface” (claim 11), “one or more scripts” (claim 12), and “interfacing with a marketplace system configured to render” (claim 13). When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the machine-learning component, elements for “updating” or “tuning” a model, “a web page [that] comprises one or more embedded interfaces to access an application programming interface”, “one or more scripts”, and “interfacing with a marketplace system configured to render” do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 3, 6, 8, 10–13, 16, and 19–20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2, 4–5, 7, 9, 15, and 17–18 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2, 4–5, 7, 9, 15, and 17–18 depend. As a result, claims 2, 4–5, 7, 9, 15, and 17–18 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a network interface, a web server, a processing system, a memory system, a network, one or more server systems, a user interface, and an element for “transmitting”. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computing elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step for “transmitting” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which identifies “transmitting data” as a conventional computer function. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claim 14 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 14 further includes a computer program product comprising a storage medium and a computer, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computing elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 14 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 3, 6, 8, 10–13, 16, and 19–20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include “updating a machine-learning component” (claims 3, 6, 16, and 19), “tuning” a model (claims 8 and 20), “a machine-learning component” (claim 10), “a web page [that] comprises one or more embedded interfaces to access an application programming interface” (claim 11), “one or more scripts” (claim 12), and “interfacing with a marketplace system configured to render” (claim 13). The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the machine-learning component, elements for “updating” or “tuning” a model, “a web page [that] comprises one or more embedded interfaces to access an application programming interface”, “one or more scripts”, and “interfacing with a marketplace system configured to render” do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 3, 6, 8, 10–13, 16, and 19–20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2, 4–5, 7, 9, 15, and 17–18 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2, 4–5, 7, 9, 15, and 17–18 depend. As a result, claims 2, 4–5, 7, 9, 15, and 17–18 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Phatak et al. (U.S. 2023/0186332) discloses a system directed to estimating customer orders based on learned associations between customer user data and geographic information (See paragraphs 44 and 46).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623