DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 22 May 2026.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended.
Claim 3 has been canceled.
Claim 21 is new and has been added.
Claims 1-2 and 4-21 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
As indicated in the Office Action mailed on 24 February 2026, the claims recite allowable subject with reasons given in that Office Action. The claims would be allowable if the claims were re-written to overcome the 101 rejection stated in the current Office Action below.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-2, 4-10, & 21 are directed to a method, claims 11-19 are also directed to a method, and claim 20 is directed to a system.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of identifying vehicles for users. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
receiving, from a merchant, a plurality of interactions made by one or more users;
mapping a first user to a first user of the one or more users to a first data set, wherein the first user data set includes user information and one or more interactions, from the plurality of interactions, made by the first user;
determining a first subset of the one or more interactions based on a first period of time;
identifying, and based on the user information and the first subset of the one or more interactions, one or more vehicles for the first user at a first time, wherein the one or more vehicles are identified by:
parsing the first subset of the one or more interactions, to determine one or more trends based on one or more attributes of the first subset of the one or more interactions;
determining a first user profile based on the user information and the one or more trends, the first user profile including a user criteria score for each of one or more user criteria;
comparing the user criteria score for each of the one or more user criteria with one or more vehicles, each of the one or more vehicles including a vehicle criteria score for each of one or more vehicle criteria, each vehicle criteria corresponding to a respective user criteria; and
based on the comparing, identifying the one or more vehicles for the first user at the first time;
determining, real-time directions to one or more locations of the one or more vehicles based on the first user;
displaying to the first user, the real-time directions to the one or more locations of the one or more vehicles and for the first user to opt into receiving financial information related to the one or more vehicles;
receiving, via an input by the first user, an indication of the first user accessing the information and opting into receiving the financial information related to the one or more vehicles;
collecting notification engagement data comprising one or more of a duration from displaying the one or more vehicles to the indication of the first user accessing a search of the one or more vehicles, or an addition of the one or more vehicles to a shopping cart;
analyzing the indication of the first user and the notification engagement data together with one or more vehicles and the first subset of the one or more interactions to determine an efficacy of the one or more vehicles for the first user;
determining, based on the efficacy, an error associated with the one or more vehicles; and
adjust values of one or more variables.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of identifying vehicles for users, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claims 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because the claims recite steps that relate to sale activities or behaviors. For example, the claims recite the activities of receiving from a merchant, interactions made by one or more users, mapping a user to user data that includes interaction information by the user, parsing the first subset of interactions to determine trends based on attributes of the interactions in the subset, determining a user profile based on the user information and the trends determined, comparing the user criteria score for each of the one or more user criteria with one or more vehicles, where the vehicles include a vehicle criteria score for the vehicle criteria, transmitting to the user information to opt into receiving financial information related to the one or more vehicles, receiving input by the first user an indication of the user accessing the information and opting into receiving the financial information related to the one or more vehicles, collecting notification engagement data to indicate when the first user searches vehicles or selects a vehicle for purchasing, analyzing the engagement data for determining an efficacy of one or more vehicles for the user, determining based on the efficacy an error associated with the one or more vehicles, and adjusting values of the, thereby making the abstract idea related to sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
The Examiner additionally notes that that the step of determining a first subset of one or more interactions based on a first period of time would fall into the enumerated grouping of mental processes. A mental process is defined as and includes “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion)” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). In this case, the step of determining a first subset of one or more interactions, is considered to be a concept performed in the human mind, observations and evaluations. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea that also falls into the grouping of mental processes.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements: a computer, electronic, database over an electronic network, by a trained machine learning model, by the trained machine learning model, on a global positioning signal of a user device, on a graphical user interface (GUI) of the user device, a link, over the electronic network, the graphical user interface (GUI), the link, accessing the link, an internet search, back-propagating the error through the trained machine learning model, and the trained machine learning model.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., identifying vehicles for users) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). While the claims recite using a trained machine learning model, the recitations are results based in nature and do not include details as to how the machine learning is actually functioning beyond known functions. Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements of a computer, electronic, database over an electronic network, by a trained machine learning model, by the trained machine learning model, on a global positioning signal of a user device, on a graphical user interface (GUI) of the user device, a link, over the electronic network, the graphical user interface (GUI), the link, accessing the link, an internet search, back-propagating the error through the trained machine learning model, and the trained machine learning model, recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claims 11 and 20 are similar in nature to representative claim 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 1. It is noted that independent claim 20 includes the additional element of at least one memory storing instructions, at least one processor operatively connected to the at least one memory storing instructions and configured to execute the instructions to perform operations. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements in claim 20, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claim 20 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of 20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claim 20, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Independent claim 11 does not recite any other additional elements to consider in the analysis and therefore claim 11 does not recite claims that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor does claim 11 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, claims 11 and 20 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-10, 21, & 12-19, depending from claims 1 and 11, respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claim 1. The claims of 2, 4-10, & 21, and 12-19 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims include the additional element of the GUI (claims 6 and 16). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 6 and 16 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 6 and 16considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-19, and 21 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12-19, and 21 are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 22 May 2026, have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 13-14 of the remarks stating “each of the independent claims has been amended to more clearly reflect an improvement to a technological area described in the original specification and demonstrate integration into a practical application,” and “Given that the error is determined based on the efficacy, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that back-propagating the error through the model, as described in paras. [0073] and [0077], improves the efficacy of the models future vehicle identification,” and “claims 1, 11, and 20 demonstrate an integration of a practical application into the subject matter of the claims and reflect a technological improvement to the functioning of machine learning models, enabling continued model refinement using implicit engagement signals as a proxy for explicitly feedback labels,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, the amended claims as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. When considering the additional elements recited in the claims, in combination and individually, are still recited in a generic manner, merely being used to apply the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer and using general purpose computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The amended claims include the additional elements of a computer, electronic, database over an electronic network, by a trained machine learning model, by the trained machine learning model, on a global positioning signal of a user device, on a graphical user interface (GUI) of the user device, a link, over the electronic network, the graphical user interface (GUI), the link, accessing the link, an internet search, back-propagating the error through the trained machine learning model, and the trained machine learning model, which are still recited at a high-level, described in a generic manner, and are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although the newly added features of the claim of accessing the link and back-propagating the error through the trained machine learning model, the newly added additional elements are not described with sufficient detail, that when considered in combination with other additional elements in the claims, to integrate the abstract idea. Further, the claims do not reflect an improvement to the technology. The MPEP (2106.05(a)) provides further guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, as indicated in 2106.05(d)(1) of the MPEP “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. This is reflected in paragraph [0003]-[0004] of Applicant’s specification, which describe Applicant’s claimed invention is directed toward solving problems related to customers that are overwhelmed “by the numerous options available and a complex set of criteria to consider, such as price, performance, fuel efficiency, safety, and other bells and whistles” and that “many customers lack the expertise to make an informed decision and may end up committing a large amount of financial resources for a vehicle that does not fully meet their needs and preferences,”. Although the claims include computer technology of a computer, electronic, database over an electronic network, by a trained machine learning model, by the trained machine learning model, on a global positioning signal of a user device, on a graphical user interface (GUI) of the user device, a link, over the electronic network, the graphical user interface (GUI), the link, accessing the link, an internet search, back-propagating the error through the trained machine learning model, and the trained machine learning model, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving the existing technological process but are directed to improving the commercial task of identifying vehicles for a user. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improvements in identifying vehicles for a user to purchase, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and computer components that operate the system, and is not providing an improvement to the machine learning models. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while still employing the same processor and/or computer components used in conventional systems to improve the identifying vehicles for a user, e.g. commercial process. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not recite an improvement to the technology, nor an improvement to the technical field of machine learning models.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 14-15 of the remarks stating “at least by virtue of its dependence, dependent claim 21 is likewise patent-eligible and allowable. In addition, new claim 21 recites and additional specific technical constraint, a stopping criterion for the backpropagation process, that further demonstrates integration into a practical application by specifying how the model refinement terminates,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The newly added claim 21 is not eligible under the 101 analysis. The dependent claim depends from claim 1, which is not eligible under the analysis, and therefore, based on that dependency would not be eligible because the claim is merely providing further limitations on the abstract idea. Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis, although the claim also recites back-propagating the error through the trained machine learning model, the additional element considered individually and with other claimed features, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element is recited at a high-level, and is still being used to apply the abstract idea with a generically recited computing component. Under Step 2B of the analysis, the claim as a whole does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself and does not provide an inventive concept, as the additional element is still considered to be generic in nature. Therefore, claim 21 is not eligible based on its dependencies and is not eligible because it does not integrate into a practical application, and thus, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights