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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. The following is a NON-FINAL Office Action in response to the communication received on 12/3/25. 1-25 are now pending in this application.
2. A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the FINALITY of the previous Office Action has been WITHDRAWN pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/3/25 has been entered. Response to Amendments
3. Applicants Amendment has been acknowledged in that: Claims 1,10, 19 have been amended; claims 21-25 are new, hence such, claims 1-25 are now pending in this application.
Notes on Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner conducted an interview with attorney Brandon Williams on March 10th, 2026, where Examiner proposed amendments to move the application forward towards allowance (by incorporating dependent claim 21 into all of the independent claims) and to cancel independent claim 10, and its dependents, as claim 10 has unclear scope (the graphical user interface is operating outside of its designed functionality (specifically the functions of (a second subset prepopulated with the first data and second data identified by querying a set of data sources…; a third subset configured to dynamically generate a plurality of API calls…; a fourth subset configured to present, in response to receiving web-service response that have been converted.. wherein progression of workflow is triggered automatically based on validation of the machine interpretable responses), and warrants a 112 2nd rejection.
A first email was received on March 6th,2026 and a subsequent email was received on March 10th, 2026 from the attorney authorizing the changes that were discussed in the interview conducted on March 10th, 2026. There were further amendments required to place the application in condition for allowance, however, there was no email authorization document in the file wrapper.
Pending resolution of the email authorization, the Examiner can proceed with the proposed amendments.
Therefore, Examiner is issuing this office action in response to the RCE filed on 12/3/25.
However when the email authorization form is filed, the application can proceed forward to allowance by incorporating the changes that were discussed in the received emails and the interview conducted on 3/10/26.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant argues#1
Applicant amends independent claims 1, 10, and 19 to expressly recite the concrete, computer-implemented operations that the specification teaches: asynchronous third-party retrieval, validation-gated GUI state progression, dynamic API orchestration, and conversion of heterogeneous carrier payloads into a machine-interpretable format prior to automatic advancement. See, e.g., [0043]- [0045] (state management, navigation, validation), [0060] (integration platform distribution/aggregation), [0084]- [0085] (JSON packaging and multi-carrier responses).
As amended, each independent claim is directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality a progressive, state-managed GUI that asynchronously coordinates remote service calls, validates the results, normalizes the responses to a machine-interpretable format, and automatically drives GUI progression only upon successful validations. These are not mental steps, nor longstanding commercial practices; they are particularized computer operations that the spec identifies as solving technology-rooted problems in networked GUI systems (latency, state management, validation, error handling). See [0034]- [0036]. Therefore, the claims do not recite a judicial exception, and are subject matter eligible at Step 2A, Prong One.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations that applicant is referring to (receiving a plurality of responses from the webservices, converting each response into a machine-interpretable format and triggering automatic progression of the workflow to a next GUI state based on validation) is part of the identified abstract idea.
The spec paras 34-36, 43-45,60 that application is referring to is reproduced below:
[0034] Thus, GUI (115) solves problems of prior graphical user interface devices
(GUIs), in the context of computerized insurance transactions, relating to speed, accuracy, and usability. Rather than reciting a mathematical algorithm, a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice, or a challenge in business, graphical user interface (1) improves on existing interface devices that do not have a pre-electronic analog. The embodiments of GUI (115) provide significantly more than prior graphical user interface devices that merely allow for setting, displaying, and selecting data or information that is visible on a GUI. Instead, GUI (115) utilizes a specific, structured interface related a prescribed functionality that resolves a specifically identified problem of obtaining online insurance quotes.
[0035] Furthermore, the specific structure and concordant functionality of GUI
(115) distinguishes this system as compared to conventional computer implementations of known procedures. The function of GUI (115) is not simply the generalized use of client device (110) as a tool to conduct a known or obvious process. Instead, GUI (115) provides an inventive concept that allows users to submit requests and visualize comparisons of quotes provided by different web services (140) more efficiently and accurately. Rather than the routine or conventional use of computers or the Internet, GUI (115) overcomes problems that are necessarily rooted in computer technology and that specifically arise in the realm of computer networks, resulting in an improvement to the capabilities of the computer system.
[0036] Application server (120) may retrieve information from one or more third- party data sources (130) to prefill or autosuggest data to the client device (110) to populate one or more input fields (e.g., templates, online applications, forms, etc.) that may be transmitted to the Quoting application (125). Information retrieved from data sources (130) may also be submitted from application server to various web services (140) via one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) to obtain an insurance quote from one or more carriers (145A-145N).
[0043] When a microservices architecture is utilized, quoting application (125) may enable GUI (115) to resolve one or more difficulties in creating a sequential GUI for obtaining online quotes for insurance policies. In one or more embodiments, GUI (115) solves one or more problems of prior GUI devices and sequential GUI devices, in the context of computerized insurance transactions, relating to one or more of state management, navigation, validation, flexibility, error handling, and testing.
[0044] For example, quoting application (125) may provide state management,
enabling GUI (115) to manage the state of the interface, such as which step the user is currently on and what information has been entered. GUI (115) facilitate easier navigation, ensuring that the user can easily move between steps in the application process of the Quoting application (125), and providing clear feedback on the user's progress. Quoting application (125) may enable GUI (115) to validate user input as the user progresses through the steps, considering different validation rules for different steps. Quoting application (125) enables GUI (115) to be more flexible than other progressive interfaces, as it guides the user through a set sequence of steps. The microservices architecture may enable developers more easily to amend the interface or add new features later on.
[0045] In some illustrative examples, quoting application (125) can use an artificial intelligence system that includes one or more machine learning models (150) to make assumptions regarding data that may be required by web services (140) to obtain a quote for an insurance product. The artificial intelligence system comprises at least one of an artificial neural network, a cognitive system, a Bayesian network, a fuzzy logic, an expert system, a natural language system, or some other suitable system. Machine learning is used to train the artificial intelligence system. Machine learning involves inputting data to the process and allowing the process to adjust and improve the function of the artificial intelligence system.
[0060] The dataflow shown illustrated in FIG. 3 may utilize a Salesforce back-end
using Heroku React Node. JS and a PostgreSQL database. Information is pulled from Salesforce and the logic in the app is applying before sending the information out to a MuleSoft integration platform. Carrier responses are sent back to the data platform where they synchronized with the local database, backed-up to Salesforce, and displayed in the user interface.
The additional elements in the claim (the webservices, converting each response into a machine readable format, GUI state management, machine learning models and integration platform) are recited a high level of generality, operating in their ordinary capacity, and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Applicant argued the claims present a technical improvement. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant’s claims do not improve technology; the underlying technology remains unaffected by the claims. Applicant is merely using existing technology (for its intended purpose) to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea. Any improvements lie in the identified abstract idea itself, and not in the underlying technology.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#2
Even assuming a judicial exception, the claims integrate any such exception into a
practical application: (i) GUI state transitions are constrained by remote-validation outcomes; (ii) third-party data are pre-fetched and integrated before submission to reduce manual entry and errors; and (iii) web-service responses are converted into machine-interpretable structures used to drive subsequent GUI behavior. The claimed sequence and data-dependency gating produce an improved computer process, not merely a result. See [0044] (state management/validation), FIG. 4 (method flow with prepopulation/API calls/response presentation), and FIG. 12 (aggregated multi-carrier response handling). Any reported. Judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, rendering the claims subject matter eligible at Step 2A, Prong Two.
Finally, the ordered combination of (a) asynchronous third-party retrieval and validation prior to submission, (b) dynamic mapping and API orchestration across carrier-specific endpoints, (c) format conversion into machine-interpretable structures, and (d) automatic, validation-gated GUI progression is not conventional or routine. The spec teaches these as implementation-specific improvements over generic form-filling, including microservices-based integrations and responsive, near real-time GUI updates with user-editable third-party data. See [0037]- [0045], [0060], [0077]- [0087]. Therefore, the claims are subject matter eligible at step 2B.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The additional limitations from claims 23-25 are addressed below in the section 101 rejection, see pages 15-17 of this office action.
As far as the additional elements being routine or conventional, applicant misapprehends when a Berkheimer analysis is required under current examination policy. Simply put, Examiner is not required under current Examination policy to evaluate under Step 2B, whether additional elements constitute “well-understood, routine, and conventional activities,” [“WURC activities”] unless an additional element(s) were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong 2. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I). Here, the condition precedent was not met and the Final Office Action determined the additional elements were no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception using a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f). Thus, Examiner was not required to determine a Berkheimer analysis. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I). (See Section 101 rejection below).
The rejection is maintained.
Claim Objection
1. Claim 19 is objected to for the following:
Claim 19 recites:
19. (Previously Presented).
However claim 19 has been amended.
Examiner suggests changing the status identifier to recite:
19. (Currently Amended)
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
2. Claims 10-18, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “A graphical user interface in an agent facing computer system, the graphical user interface comprises:
a progressive graphical user interface (GUI), comprising a plurality of pages,
logically arranged into a workflow, wherein the plurality of pages further
comprises:
a first subset configured to receive first data about a user from a client device;
a second subset of the prepopulated with the first data and second data
identified by querying a set of data sources; storing data records associated with the first data, wherein the second data is asynchronously retrieved, validated, and integrated across third-party sources;
a third subset of the plurality of pages configured to dynamically generate a plurality of API calls to a plurality of web services by mapping at least a portion of the first data and the second data that is mapped to corresponding input inputs for the web services; and
a fourth subset of the plurality of pages configured to present, in response to receiving web-service responses that have been converted into a machine-interpretable format, a plurality of responses. wherein progression of the workflow is triggered
automatically based on validation of the machine-interpretable responses.
Firstly, it appears applicant is trying to claim the Gui itself, as part of a computer system, however there is no computer claimed in the body of the claims.
Secondly, the scope of claim 10 is indefinite. The graphical user interface is operating outside of its designed functionality, graphical user interfaces are designed to display information, provide ways to input data on a screen, and navigate through file sites, websites or applications. The functions recited in claim 10, (specifically the functions of (a second subset prepopulated with the first data and second data identified by querying a set of data sources…; a third subset configured to dynamically generate a plurality of API calls…; a fourth subset configured to present, in response to receiving web-service response that have been converted.. wherein progression of workflow is triggered automatically based on validation of the machine interpretable responses) are outside the scope of what a Gui is originally designed for.
Claims 11-18, 24 are rejected using the same rationale as claim 10, as it fails to cure the deficiency of claim 10.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C § 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.
1. Claims 1-20, 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10, 19 are directed to a system, method and graphical user interface, which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A method in an agent facing computer system, the method
comprising:
generating a progressive graphical user interface (GUI), comprising a plurality of pages, logically arranged into a workflow;
receiving, into a first subset of the plurality of pages, first data about a user input from a client device;
querying a set of data sources to identify second data, stored in data records associated with the first data;
asynchronously retrieving, validating, and integrating the second data across third-party sources prior to user submission;
prepopulating a second subset of the plurality of pages with the first data and the second data;
dynamically generating, from a third subset of the plurality of pages, a plurality of API calls to a plurality of web services, by mapping at least a portion of the first data and the second data to corresponding inputs for the web services;
receiving a plurality of responses from the web services and converting each response into a machine-interpretable format;
presenting, in a fourth subset of the plurality of pages, the plurality of responses; and
triggering automatic progression of the workflow to a next GUI state based on validation of the machine-interpretable responses.
The claim recites elements that are in bold above, (e.g., comprising a plurality of pages, logically arranged into a workflow; receiving, into a first subset of the plurality of pages, first data about a user input; querying a set of data sources to identify second data, stored in data records associated with the first data; asynchronously retrieving, validating, and integrating the second data across third-party sources prior to user submission; prepopulating a second subset of the plurality of pages with the first data and the second data; receiving a plurality of responses; presenting, in a fourth subset of the plurality of pages, the plurality of responses; and triggering automatic progression of the workflow to a next state based on validation of the responses), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a mental process, more specifically a concept performed mentally by a human with a pen and paper (steps for carrying out tasks associated with a workflow between a user and webservice).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a certain method of a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claims 10,19 recite substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and are abstract for similar reasons.
(Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
Claim 1 includes the following additional elements:
-A graphical user interface
-A client device
-A plurality of API calls
-A web service
-Converting response into a machine-interpretable format
-A next GUI state
The graphical user interface, client device, plurality of API calls, the web service, the converting of responses into a machine readable format and the next GUI state are recited at a high level of generality and being used in its ordinary capacity and are being used as a tool for implementing the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), where applying a computer or using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea is not indicative of a practical application.
Therefore, there are no additional elements in the claim that amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 10, 19 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, on or with the use of generic computer components, or even without any computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claims 1,10,19 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, 20, 22-25 which further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 10, 19 and thus correspond to a Mental process and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Claim 9 recites the additional element of a JSON object (JavaScript object notation).
The JSON object is recited at a high level of generality, which is operating in its ordinary capacity and is being used as a tool to steps the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 22 recites the additional elements of a JSON object (JavaScript object notation), and an integration platform, are recited at a high level of generality, operating in their ordinary capacity, and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Claim 24 recites, the additional elements of state management with validation-gated transitions (progressive GUI’ S are designed to employ state management in some form to help the user navigate through the different steps of an application and validation gate transitions are commonly understood as specific checkpoints in a project or process lifecycle). These additional elements (state management and validation gate transitions) are recited a high level of generality and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Claim 25, recites the additional element of a trained machine learning models. These trained machine learning models are recited a high level of generality and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, the dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, 20, 22-25 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims 1-20, 22-25 are not patent-eligible.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-3444. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, 9-600; Fri, 8-11, 3-5.
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, BENNETT SIGMOND can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
3/27/2026
Prosecution Insights