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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 08/06/2026.
Claims 2, 9, 16, and 23-25 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for future claim amendments to avoid U.S.C 112(a) issues that can arise. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/06/2026 has been entered.
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 2-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of generating and providing real-time new offers without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 9 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 2, 9, and 16.
Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention; Claim 9 is directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention; and Claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 9 is directed to a system, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing thereon instructions that, as a result of being executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: obtain user interaction data from a real-time offers application executing on a computing device associated with a user, wherein the real-time offers application interfaces with one or more additional applications executing on the computing device; retrieve, through one or more external services operating in a federated authentication environment, updated user account information associated with the user; process the user interaction data and the updated user account information to determine a set of dynamic user attributes, wherein the user interaction data and the updated user account information are processed through a real-time offers platform in communication with the real-time offers application; process the set of dynamic user attributes through a machine learning model to identify a cluster of similarly situated users from a set of clusters, wherein the machine learning model is trained to generate the set of clusters using a data set including sample user attributes associated with a set of sample users and sample offers corresponding to the set of sample users; generate one or more offers for the user according to the identified cluster of similarly situated users; update, by the real-time offers application, an interface displayed on the computing device to provide the one or more offers; obtain new user interaction data corresponding to new user interactions with the one or more additional applications, wherein the new user interaction data is obtained through the real-time offers application; update the data set to include the set of dynamic user attributes, the one or more offers, and the new user interaction data; retrain the machine learning model by using the updated data set to update the set of clusters; process, through the real-time offers platform, the new user interaction data and additional user account information retrieved through the federated authentication environment to determine a new set of dynamic user attributes; process the new set of dynamic user attributes through the retrained machine learning model to identify a new cluster of similarly situated users from the updated set of clusters; generate one or more alternative offers for the user, wherein the one or more alternative offers are generated by the retrained machine learning model according to the new cluster; and update the interface to provide the one or more alternative offers. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of generating and providing real-time new offers (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is providing individually tailored offers in real time to mitigate risk due to changing conditions, where a user may remain eligible for an offer with updated terms and conditions; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also providing tailored financial offers in real-time based on user attributes, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The system limitations, e.g., one or more processors, memory, system, real-time offers application, computing device, one or more additional applications, one or more external services, federated authentication environment, real-time offers platform, machine learning model, cluster, set of clusters, identified cluster, new cluster, updated set of clusters, interface, and retrained machine learning model, do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 9 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of one or more processors, memory, system, real-time offers application, computing device, one or more additional applications, one or more external services, federated authentication environment, real-time offers platform, machine learning model, cluster, set of clusters, identified cluster, new cluster, updated set of clusters, interface, and retrained machine learning model, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. Merely invoking one or more processors, memory, system, real-time offers application, computing device, one or more additional applications, one or more external services, federated authentication environment, real-time offers platform, machine learning model, cluster, set of clusters, identified cluster, new cluster, updated set of clusters, interface, and retrained machine learning model is similar to invoking software and software components. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 9 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of one or more processors, memory, system, real-time offers application, computing device, one or more additional applications, one or more external services, federated authentication environment, real-time offers platform, machine learning model, cluster, set of clusters, identified cluster, new cluster, updated set of clusters, interface, and retrained machine learning model, are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to the other independent claims, claims 2 and 16; and hence, claims 2 and 16 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 9.
Dependent claims 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-25 are directed to a method, system, and non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, which perform the steps that describe the abstract idea of generating and providing real-time new offers. Specifically, dependent claims 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-25 are directed to a method, system, and non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, which perform the steps that provide individually tailored offers in real time to mitigate risk due to changing conditions, where a user may remain eligible for an offer with updated terms and conditions; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also providing tailored financial offers in real-time based on user attributes, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Thus, dependent claims 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-25 recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of one or more processors, memory, system, real-time offers application, computing device, one or more additional applications, one or more external services, federated authentication environment, real-time offers platform, machine learning model, cluster, set of clusters, identified cluster, new cluster, updated set of clusters, interface, and retrained machine learning model, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Merely invoking one or more processors, memory, system, real-time offers application, computing device, one or more additional applications, one or more external services, federated authentication environment, real-time offers platform, machine learning model, cluster, set of clusters, identified cluster, new cluster, updated set of clusters, interface, and retrained machine learning model is similar to invoking software and software components. Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements: one or more processors, memory, system, real-time offers application, computing device, one or more additional applications, one or more external services, federated authentication environment, real-time offers platform, machine learning model, cluster, set of clusters, identified cluster, new cluster, updated set of clusters, interface, and retrained machine learning model, do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Dependent claims 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-25 have further defined the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims: Claim 2, 9, and 16; and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. The dependent claims 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-25 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, claims 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-25 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-25 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/06/2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-25 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant arguments are moot in view of the grounds of rejections presented above in this office action. The arguments are addressed to the extent they apply to the amended claims.
Applicant asserts that “Claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as allegedly directed towards an abstract idea of generating and providing real-time new offers without significantly more. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Independent claims 2, 9, and 16 have been amended to recite a specific, closed-loop computing architecture that is materially narrower than the Office's characterization of merely "generating and providing real-time new offers." …. Independent claims 2, 9, and 16, as amended, further require obtaining subsequent user- interaction data, updating the machine-learning data set with the dynamic user attributes, generated offers, and subsequent interaction data, retraining the machine-learning model to update its set of clusters, generating a new set of dynamic user attributes from newly obtained interaction and account data, and applying the retrained model to identify a new cluster from the updated set of clusters. These limitations define an adaptive data-acquisition, model-training, and model-execution process, which is not the mere use of a generic computer to perform a financial calculation.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A: Prong 1, as previously discussed in the Final Office Action dated 04/11/2025, Non-Final Office Action dated 10/22/2025, and Final Office Action dated 04/07/2026, Examiner respectfully notes that the claims as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of generating and providing real-time new offers, without significantly more. The series of steps recited in the amended claims describe an abstract idea, which is providing individually tailored offers in real time to mitigate risk due to changing conditions, where a user may remain eligible for an offer with updated terms and conditions; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also providing tailored financial offers in real-time based on user attributes, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Furthermore, the system limitations, e.g., one or more processors, memory, system, real-time offers application, computing device, one or more additional applications, one or more external services, federated authentication environment, real-time offers platform, machine learning model, cluster, set of clusters, identified cluster, new cluster, updated set of clusters, interface, and retrained machine learning model do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner respectfully notes that the claims are first analyzed in the absence of technology to determine if it recites an abstract idea. The additional limitations of technology are then considered to determine if it restricts the claim from reciting an abstract idea. In this case, it is determined that the additional limitations of technology do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Furthermore, Examiner respectfully notes that the recited features in the limitations (of Claim 9): “a system, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing thereon instructions that, as a result of being executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: obtain user interaction data from a real-time offers application executing on a computing device associated with a user, wherein the real-time offers application interfaces with one or more additional applications executing on the computing device; retrieve, through one or more external services operating in a federated authentication environment, updated user account information associated with the user; process the user interaction data and the updated user account information to determine a set of dynamic user attributes, wherein the user interaction data and the updated user account information are processed through a real-time offers platform in communication with the real-time offers application; process the set of dynamic user attributes through a machine learning model to identify a cluster of similarly situated users from a set of clusters, wherein the machine learning model is trained to generate the set of clusters using a data set including sample user attributes associated with a set of sample users and sample offers corresponding to the set of sample users; generate one or more offers for the user according to the identified cluster of similarly situated users; update, by the real-time offers application, an interface displayed on the computing device to provide the one or more offers; obtain new user interaction data corresponding to new user interactions with the one or more additional applications, wherein the new user interaction data is obtained through the real-time offers application; update the data set to include the set of dynamic user attributes, the one or more offers, and the new user interaction data; retrain the machine learning model by using the updated data set to update the set of clusters; process, through the real-time offers platform, the new user interaction data and additional user account information retrieved through the federated authentication environment to determine a new set of dynamic user attributes; process the new set of dynamic user attributes through the retrained machine learning model to identify a new cluster of similarly situated users from the updated set of clusters; generate one or more alternative offers for the user, wherein the one or more alternative offers are generated by the retrained machine learning model according to the new cluster; and update the interface to provide the one or more alternative offers” are making use of a computer and the computer limitations do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea as discussed above under Step 2A-Prong 1 of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Hence, Examiner has also considered each and every arguments under Step 2A-Prong 1 and concludes that these arguments are not persuasive. For example, under Step 2A-Prong 1, Examiner considers each and every limitation to determine if the claim recites an abstract idea. In this case, it is determined that the claim recites an abstract idea and the additional limitations of a computer device does not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The recited steps, as amended, are abstract in nature as there are no technical/technology improvements as a result of these steps. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by providing technical/technology improvements are considered under Step 2A-Prong 2.
Applicant asserts that “even assuming, arguendo, that the claims recite a commercial interaction, the claimed ordered combination integrates that interaction into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. The federated retrieval of externally maintained account information, cross-application acquisition of interaction data, transformation of those data into dynamic attributes, feedback- based updating of the training data, retraining of the model, updating of the clustering structure, and renewed execution of the retrained model collectively impose meaningful limits on how the claimed process is performed. The Office, in the Office Action, instead treats the processors, applications, federated services, machine-learning model, and interface individually as generic components and concludes that they merely gather, process, and output data. That analysis does not adequately address the amended claims' ordered feedback loop, in which later interaction data changes the training data and clustering structure before newly assembled user attributes are processed through the retrained model. Because the amended claims apply any alleged abstract idea through this particular adaptive computing process, the claims are not directed to the asserted judicial exception. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 2, 9, and 16, and the claims depending therefrom, are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 101 is therefore respectfully requested.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A: Prong 2, as previously discussed in the Final Office Action dated 04/11/2025, Non-Final Office Action dated 10/22/2025, and Final Office Action dated 04/07/2026, Examiner respectfully notes that there is no improved technology in simply obtaining, retrieving, processing, receiving, training ( i.e. processing), retraining ( i.e. reprocessing), generating, using, updating, providing, determining, and removing data (i.e., offer data, user interaction data, user attributes, user data, and etc.). The disclosed invention simply cannot be equated to improvement to technological practices or computers. There is no technical improvement at all. The recited features in the limitations do not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant is simply using a computer to input, process, and output data. The recited features in the limitations does not disclose a technical solution to technical problem, but simply a business solution. Specifically, the recited steps, as amended, are merely managing/processing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) and does not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Thus, Applicant has simply provided a business method practice of processing data (loan/financial/transactional/offer data), and no technical solution or improvement has been disclosed. Additionally, as previously discussed in the Final Office Action dated 04/11/2025, Non-Final Office Action dated 10/22/2025, and Final Office Action dated 04/07/2026, there is no technology/technical improvement as a result of implementing the abstract idea. The recited limitations in the pending claims simply amount to the abstract idea of generating and providing real-time new offers. There is no computer functionality improvement or technology improvement. The claim does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. If there is an improvement, it is to the abstract idea and not to technology. Additionally, Examiner notes that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., recited fundamental economic principle or practice and/or commercial interaction) is not an improvement in technology (See, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Thus, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and these arguments are not persuasive. The claims, as amended, recites steps at a high level of generality. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting; therefore, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and output. See MPEP 2106.05. Additionally, the ‘automatically’ and ‘dynamically’ features simply amounts to mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, the automation feature is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality or technology/technical improvements (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(1)). The claim simply makes use of a computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea without transforming the abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive
Moreover, these steps, as amended, are recited as being performed by one or more processors, memory, system, real-time offers application, computing device, one or more additional applications, one or more external services, federated authentication environment, real-time offers platform, machine learning model, cluster, set of clusters, identified cluster, new cluster, updated set of clusters, interface, and retrained machine learning model. The additional elements: one or more processors, memory, system, real-time offers application, computing device, one or more additional applications, one or more external services, federated authentication environment, real-time offers platform, machine learning model, cluster, set of clusters, identified cluster, new cluster, updated set of clusters, interface, and retrained machine learning model are recited at a high level of generality, and are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving, processing, and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims, as amended, recite one or more processors, memory, system, real-time offers application, computing device, one or more additional applications, one or more external services, federated authentication environment, real-time offers platform, machine learning model, cluster, set of clusters, identified cluster, new cluster, updated set of clusters, interface, and retrained machine learning model, which are simply used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong 1, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, as previously discussed, the recitation of one or more processors, memory, system, real-time offers application, computing device, one or more additional applications, one or more external services, federated authentication environment, real-time offers platform, machine learning model, cluster, set of clusters, identified cluster, new cluster, updated set of clusters, interface, and retrained machine learning model in the limitations merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. The claims, as amended, merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Hence, the claims, as amended, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Hence, Examiner respectfully declines Applicant’s request to withdraw the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-25.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are the following:
Kranzley US Patent Publication US 2013/0144715 A1 -“Unified system, methods, and computer program products enabling the processing of one or more events associated with a transaction executing the purchase and/or use of one or more products”
Morin (U.S. Patent No. US 11,244,340 B1) “Method and system for using machine learning techniques to identify and recommend relevant offers”
Kothari (U.S. Patent No. US 10,832,318 B1) -“Computer-based systems and platforms and computer-implemented methods configured for tracking data objects' behaviours and utilizing graphical user interface elements to execute numerous electronic activities with a single instruction”
Trim (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0409656 A1) “Audible command modification”
Buerger (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0171555A1) “Method and System for Customer Evaluation and Development/Provision of Multiple Types of Varied and Pre-Approved Customized Product Offers to Evaluated Customers for On-Demand Acceptance and Fulfillment”
White (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0380551 A1) “Device with rule based offers”
Marshak (U.S. Patent No. US 2017/0109776 A1) “System and method for generation of dynamically priced discount offers for perishable inventory to vendor-selected customer segments”
Boal (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0180808 A1) “Generation and management of dynamic electronic offers”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED H MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-7978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 - 5:00.
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, MICHAEL W. ANDERSON can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/MOHAMMED H MUSTAFA/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights