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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, 16, and 20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/30/2026, with respect to the 112f claim interpretations have been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues that the services triggering engine is not intended to be interpreted under 112f and is described as a structural component with in a computing system that performs specific operations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The services triggering engine has been interpreted under 112f and the interpretation made part of the record because the claim limitation recites a generic placeholder and is not preceded by a structural modifier. Examiner is simply going on the record to indicate that even though there is no structural modifier recited, the claim is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure in the specification as performing the claim’s function and equivalents thereof. In the event that a generic placeholder does not have corresponding structure and a recited function, the rejection would also include corresponding 112a/112b rejections, which is not the case here.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/30/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection has been considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 10-11, that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and even if claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea, the claims have been amended to integrate any such abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant argues that the combination of automatic permission configuration by the services triggering engine based on monitored activities and the enforcement of those permissions by the user application during encrypted communications represents a specific technical solution to the problem of managing secure communications within dynamically formed micro-communities.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as identifying and connecting people with similar interests based on their financial information. (See par. 0005 of the specification). The additional elements (computer elements, training of a machine learning model, applications, encrypted communication and permissions, etc), are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Here, the claims provide/facilitate a way to mine/use data records to connect people with similar interests and therefore is an improvement to certain methods of organizing human activity and not to technology or technical field. (See Specification, par. 0017). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant argues, on page 12, that the claims as amended provide significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Applicant argues that claim 20 has also been amended to recite various levels of access which further imposes meaningful limits on the claims and recites specifical technical architecture.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality. The same analysis applies in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
The closest prior art of record is included in the previous office action mailed on 12/30/2025. The claims would be considered allowable if re-written or amended to overcome the rejections in this office action.
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.
Step 1
Claims 1-7 are directed to a system with multiple components, and therefore is a machine.
Claims 8-15 are directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Claim 16-20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable media and therefore are an article of manufacture.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
analyze, …, the … data records corresponding to … transactions for the plurality of users, for an indication of an activity performed by a first user of the plurality of users;
monitor, based on a rule set, a plurality of social network communications associated with the first user;
identify, an indication of a first activity based on the analyzed … data records and a triggering condition based on monitored social network communications;
send, … based on an identified first activity and the triggering condition, a set of operations to be completed by the first user;
…
generate, …, a plurality of micro-communities of users associated with a plurality of activities identified from the plurality of … data records;
assign, based on the set of operations sent to the first user, the first user to a first micro-community, wherein permissions of each member of the micro- community is based on responses to the set of operations sent to each user of the micro-community and monitored activities of the users;
automatically configure, …, network permissions for each member of the micro-community based on the monitored activities of the users and responses to the set of operations sent to each user of the micro-community;
facilitate, … based on the set of operations sent … and the permissions, … communication within the plurality micro-communities and between a plurality of user devices associated with members of the micro-communities, wherein the … enforces the network permissions …; and
retrain, based on analysis of micro-community communications, the … model.
The limitations of Claim 8 recites:
A method comprising:
…
analyzing, …, the … data records corresponding to … transactions for a plurality of users, for an indication of an activity performed by a first user of the plurality of users;
monitoring, based on a rule set, a plurality of social network communications associated with the first user;
identifying, an indication of a first activity based on the analyzed data records and a triggering condition based on monitored social network communications;
sending, … based on an identified first activity and the triggering condition, a set of operations to be completed by the first user;
assigning, based on the set of operations sent to the first user, the first user to a first micro- community, wherein permissions of each member of the micro-community is based on responses to the set of operations sent to each user of the micro-community and monitored activities of the users;
automatically configuring, by the services triggering engine, network permissions for each member of the micro-community based on the monitored activities of the users and responses to the set of operations sent to each user of the micro-community;
generating, …, one or more micro-communities of users associated with a plurality activities identified from the plurality of … data records;
facilitating based on the set of operations sent …, …, … communication within the one or more micro-communities and between a plurality of user … associated with members of the micro-communities, wherein … enforces the network permissions configured …; and
…
The limitations of Claim 16 recites:
…
analyze, …, the … data records corresponding to … transactions for a plurality of users, for an indication of an activity performed by a first user of the plurality of users;
monitor, based on a rule set, a plurality of social network communications associated with the first user;
identify, an indication of a first activity based on the analyzed … data records and a triggering condition based on monitored social network communications;
send, … based on an identified first activity and the triggering condition, a set of operations to be completed by the first user;
generate, …, one or more micro-communities of users associated with a plurality of activities identified from the plurality of … data records;
assign, based on the set of operations sent to the first user, the first user to a first micro- community, wherein permissions of each member of the micro-community is based on responses to the set of operations sent to each user of the micro-community and monitored activities of the users;
automatically configure, …, network permissions for each member of the micro-community based on the monitored activities of the users and responses to the set of operations sent to each user of the micro-community;
facilitate, … based on the set of operations sent by … and the permissions, … communication within the one or more micro- communities and between a plurality of user devices associated with members of the micro- communities, wherein … enforces the network permissions configured …; and
…
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as identifying and connecting people with similar interests based on their financial information. (See par. 0005 of the specification). The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
A system comprising:
a plurality of application computing systems, each application computing system comprising a data repository storing electronic data records corresponding to electronic transactions for a plurality of users;
a computing platform, comprising:
at least one processor; and
memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to:
train an artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model based on a plurality of electronic data records retrieved from the plurality of application computing systems;
network
services triggering engine
electronic data records
user application
encrypted electronic communication
user devices
retrain, based on analysis of micro-community communications, the AI/ML model.
Claim 8:
training an artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model based on a plurality of electronic data records retrieved from a plurality of application computing systems;
network
services triggering engine
electronic data records
user application
encrypted electronic communication
user devices
retraining, based on analysis of micro-community communications, the AI/MVL model.
Claim 16:
Non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computing platform to:
train an artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model based on a plurality of electronic data records retrieved from a plurality of application computing systems;
network
electronic data records
services triggering engine
encrypted electronic communication
user application
retrain, based on analysis of micro-community communications, the AI/ML model.
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 and 17-20 further narrow the recite the same abstract ideas recited in Claims 1 and 8 and 16, respectively. Therefore, claims 2-7 and 9-15 and 17-20 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 2
Historical electronic data records
Claim 6
Electronic reward communication
Claim 9
Historical electronic data records
Claim 14
Electronic reward communication
Claim 17
Historical electronic data records
Claim 19
Application on a user device
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. 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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights