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 office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on June 29, 2026 for the patent application 18/370,066 originally filed on September 19, 2023. Claims 1 and 12 are amended. Claims 1-22 are pending. The first office action of February 25, 2025; the second office action of August 6, 2025; and the third office action of February 25, 2026 are fully incorporated by reference into this Final 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 1-22 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.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process) and claim 12 is directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “generating simulated phishing communications,” in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1
“communicating…one or more simulated phishing communications of a simulated phishing campaign to …one or more users in a format consistent with a specific messaging platform;
receiving… a failure event from the simulated phishing campaign manager that one or more users failed one or more simulated phishing communications of a simulated phishing campaign by interacting with the one or more simulated phishing communications;
receiving… feedback from one or more users that interacted with and failed the one or more simulated phishing communications, the feedback inputted …identifying one or more reasons that the one or more users interacted with an exploit type of the one or more simulated phishing communications, wherein at least a portion of the feedback comprises freeform text input by the one or more users,…retrieving one or more attributes of the one or more users from a user records storage, the one or more attributes comprising at least one of a job role, risk score or completion of prior training of the one or more users;
parsing, …, the freeform text using natural language processing to codify the freeform text into a finite set of responses;
categorizing… different types of the feedback including the codified finite set of responses into one or more predefined categories of a plurality of predefined categories based at least on the one or more attributes of the one or more users from which feedback was requested, wherein the user feedback categorization engine maps each of the different types of feedback to the one or more predefined categories based at least on content of the feedback and the retrieved one or more user attributes;
collating… the categorized feedback into one or more classifications selected from a plurality of classifications based at least on the retrieved one or more attributes;
communicating… a selection of a template… selecting the template based on… incorporating at least one of an industry of an organization of the one or more users, a geographic region of the one or more users, a demographic of the one or more users, or an organizational level of the one or more users, and based at least on a categorized type of feedback of the different types of feedback mapped to the one or more predefined categories and the one or more classifications;
dynamically modifying,…, content of the template in response … based on a profile of the one or more users or a classification group of the one or more users derived from the one or more classifications;
creating…a second one or more simulated phishing communications to the one or more users in accordance with the template as dynamically modified…; and
communicating… the second one or more simulated phishing communications to …the one or more users in a format consistent with a specific messaging platform.”
Per claim 12
“…receive a failure event … that one or more users failed the one or more simulated phishing communications of a simulated phishing campaign by interacting with the one or more simulated phishing communications and receive, …feedback inputted …from one or more users that interacted with and failed the one or more simulated phishing communications, the feedback identifying one or more reasons that the one or more users interacted an exploit type of the one or more simulated phishing communications, wherein at least a portion of the feedback comprises freeform text input by the one or more users, the user feedback requestor retrieving one or more attributes of the one or more users from a user …, the one or more attributes comprising at least one of a job role, risk score or completion of prior training of the one or more users;
…communicate one or more simulated phishing communications of a simulated phishing campaign to one or more users in a format consistent with a specific messaging platform;
…parse the freeform text using natural language processing to codify the freeform text into a finite set of responses, and further configured to collate the categorized feedback into one or more classifications selected from of a plurality of classifications based at least on the retrieved one or more attributes;
…interact …to communicate… a selection of a template, …selecting the template based on …incorporating at least one of an industry of an organization of the one or more users, a geographic region of the one or more users, a demographic of the one or more users, or an organizational level of the one or more users, … based at least on a categorized type of feedback of the different types of feedback mapped to the one or more predefined categories and the one or more classifications, the artificial intelligence algorithm of the recommendation engine dynamically modifying content of the template in response to application of the artificial intelligence model based on a profile of the one or more users or a classification group of the one or more users derived from the one or more classifications;
…create a second one or more simulated phishing communications to the one or more users in accordance with the template as dynamically modified…; and
wherein the simulated phishing manager is configured to communicate a second one or more simulated phishing communications to the one or more users in a format consistent with a specific messaging platform.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a user interface,” “storage,” “one or more devices” and “one or more servers,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying 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, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “generating simulated phishing communications,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a user interface,” “storage,” “one or more devices” and “one or more servers,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “user interface,” as described in paras. [0086] and [0087] of the written description of the specification as originally filed, discloses the following:
“[0086] FIG. 3 is an illustration depicting a graphical user interface 302 showing a first alert 306 in conjunction with a suspected phishing threat, according to certain aspects of the present disclosure. The graphical user interface 302 can be implemented on any suitable device, such as a user device (e.g., user device 104 of FIG. 1).”
“[0087] The graphical user interface 302 can include a window 304 for displaying a received digital communication. The window 304 can be presented in any suitable fashion, such as a separate window or part of another window (e.g., a viewing pane within a window of an email application).” As such, the Applicant’s claimed “user interface,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing element.
Also, the Applicant’s claimed “storage,” as described in para. [0161] of the written description of the specification as originally filed, discloses the following:
“[0161] Computer-readable medium 1022 can be any medium that participates in providing instructions to processor 1006 for execution, including without limitation, non-volatile storage media (e.g., optical disks, magnetic disks, flash drives, etc.) or volatile media (e.g., SDRAM, ROM, etc.). The computer-readable medium (e.g., storage devices, mediums, and memories) can include, for example, a cable or wireless signal containing a bit stream and the like. However, when mentioned, non-transitory computer-readable storage media expressly exclude media such as energy, carrier signals, electromagnetic waves, and signals per se.” As such, the Applicant’s claimed “storage,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing element.
Further, the Applicant’s claimed “one or more devices,” as described in para. [0159] of the written description of the specification as originally filed, discloses the following:
“[0159] FIG. 10 is a block diagram of an example system architecture 1002 for implementing features and processes of the present disclosure, such as those presented with reference to processes 200, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900 of FIGS. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, respectively. The features and processes disclosed herein can be implemented using one or multiple instances of system architecture 1002. The system architecture 1002 can be used to implement a server (e.g., a cloud-accessible server), a user device (e.g., a smartphone or personal computer), or any other suitable device for performing some or all of the aspects of the present disclosure. The system architecture 1002 can be implemented on any electronic device that runs software applications derived from compiled instructions, including without limitation personal computers, servers, smart phones, electronic tablets, game consoles, email devices, and the like. In some implementations, the system architecture 1002 can include one or more processors 1006, one or more input devices 1014, one or more display devices 1012, one or more network interfaces 1010, and one or more computer-readable media 1022. Each of these components can be coupled by bus 1020.” As such, the Applicant’s claimed “one or more devices,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing element.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “one or more servers,” as described in paras. [0047], [0049], [0051] and [0168] of the written description of the specification as originally filed, discloses the following:
“[0047] In some embodiments, the system may include multiple, logically grouped servers 106. In one of these embodiments, the logical group of servers may be referred to as a server farm or a machine farm. In another of these embodiments, the servers 106 may be geographically dispersed. In other embodiments, a machine farm may be administered as a single entity. In still other embodiments, the machine farm includes a plurality of machine farms. The servers 106 within each machine farm can be heterogeneous—one or more of the servers 106 or machines 106 can operate according to one type of operating system platform (e.g., Windows, manufactured by Microsoft Corp. of Redmond, Washington), while one or more of the other servers 106 can operate according to another type of operating system platform (e.g., Unix, Linux, or Mac OSX).”
“[0049] The servers 106 of each machine farm do not need to be physically proximate to another server 106 in the same machine farm. Thus, the group of servers 106 logically grouped as a machine farm may be interconnected using a wide-area network (WAN) connection or a metropolitan-area network (MAN) connection. For example, a machine farm may include servers 106 physically located in different continents or different regions of a continent, country, state, city, campus, or room. Data transmission speeds between servers 106 in the machine farm can be increased if the servers 106 are connected using a local-area network (LAN) connection or some form of direct connection. Additionally, a heterogeneous machine farm may include one or more servers 106 operating according to a type of operating system, while one or more other servers execute one or more types of hypervisors rather than operating systems. In these embodiments, hypervisors may be used to emulate virtual hardware, partition physical hardware, virtualize physical hardware, and execute virtual machines that provide access to computing environments, allowing multiple operating systems to run concurrently on a host computer. Native hypervisors may run directly on the host computer. Hypervisors may include VMware ESX/ESXi, manufactured by VMWare, Inc., of Palo Alta, California; the Xen hypervisor, an open source product whose development is overseen by Citrix Systems, Inc. of Fort Lauderdale, Florida; the HYPER-V hypervisors provided by Microsoft, or others. Hosted hypervisors may run within an operating system on a second software level. Examples of hosted hypervisors may include VMWare Workstation and VirtualBox, manufactured by Oracle Corporation of Redwood City, California.”
“[0051] Server 106 may be a file server, application server, web server, proxy server, appliance, network appliance, gateway, gateway server, virtualization server, deployment server, SSL VPN server, or firewall. In one embodiment, a plurality of servers 106 may be in the path between any two communicating servers 106.”
“[0168] The features can be implemented in a computing system that includes a back-end component, such as a data server, or that includes a middleware component, such as an application server or an Internet server, or that includes a front-end component, such as a client computer having a graphical user interface or an Internet browser, or any combination thereof. The components of the system can be connected by any form or medium of digital data communication such as a communication network. Examples of communication networks include, e.g., a LAN, a WAN, and the computers and networks forming the Internet.”
This element is reasonably interpreted as a generic networking computer with generic computer components, which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment. As such, the Applicant’s specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computer networking and does not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-11 and 13-22 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-11 and 13-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 12. Therefore, claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, and substantially similar limitations in claim 12, recite the following limitation: “an artificial intelligence model incorporating at least one of an industry of an organization of the one or more users, a geographic region of the one or more users, a demographic of the one or more users, or an organizational level of the one or more users.” This limitation is not adequately described in the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. As such, the limitation is reasonably rejected under a theory of new matter. Therefore, claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-11 and 13-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 12.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on June 29, 2026 related to claims 1-22 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
CLAIM REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “In the Office action, Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly directed to non-patentable subject matter. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of Claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. §101. The rejection asserts that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, specifically a mental process or a method of organizing human activity, and do not recite "significantly more." In view of the amendments presented herein, which explicitly recite an artificial intelligence algorithm that selects and dynamically modifies templates based on an artificial intelligence model, and in light of the precedential decision in Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision), the August 4, 2025 USPTO Memorandum on evaluating subject matter eligibility (the "August 2025 Memo"), and the December 5, 2025 MPEP update incorporating Desjardins, the amended Claims are patent-eligible.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), the claimed invention was a method of training a machine learning model on a series of tasks.
In Step 2A Prong Two, the ARP then determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. Importantly, the ARP evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task” reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification. Accordingly, the claims as a whole integrated what would otherwise be a judicial exception instead into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and therefore the claims were deemed to be outside any specific, enumerated judicial exception (Step 2A: NO).
The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first 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 in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field. The 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. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but only in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine that the claim improves technology or a technical field.
In the present case, the Applicant’s statement “an artificial intelligence algorithm that selects and dynamically modifies templates based on an artificial intelligence model,” is set forth in a conclusory manner. In fact, the limitation of “an artificial intelligence algorithm” is insufficiently described by only appearing twice in the written description of the specification as originally filed. The limitation of “an artificial intelligence model,” does not appear in the written description of the specification as originally filed at all and reasonably warrants a new matter rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). As such, the Applicant’s bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art, fails to improve technology or a technical field. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong 1 - The amended claims do not "recite" a judicial exception, or alternatively, any recited exception is integrated into a practical application
A. The Examiner's abstract-idea characterization omits the controlling claim language.
The Applicant respectfully argues “The Examiner previously characterized the claims as directed to "improving security training." The amended claims are now expressly directed to "improving the operation of a simulated phishing campaign platform for generating simulated phishing communications by dynamically adapting simulated phishing communications using an artificial intelligence algorithm that selects and modifies templates based on user-specific feedback." This is not an abstract idea; it is an improvement to the operation of a specific computer-implemented platform. The August 2025 Memo instructs examiners to distinguish "claims that recite a judicial exception from claims that merely involve a judicial exception." Here, the amended claims merely involve data analysis at intermediate steps; the claims as a whole are directed to a specific AI-driven improvement to how the platform itself operates.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Examiner has amended the identified abstract ides as “generating simulated phishing communications,” the Applicant has failed to articulate “a specific AI-driven improvement,” that is supported in the written description of the specification as originally filed and previously discussed above with regard to the Ex Parte Desjardins memo. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
B. The claims do not recite a mental process.
The Applicant respectfully argues “The amended claims now require that a "user feedback analytics engine" parse freeform text "using natural language processing to codify the freeform text into a finite set of responses." NLP parsing of unstructured text into structured data is an Al technique that cannot practically be performed in the human mind at scale. The claims further require a "recommendation engine comprising an artificial intelligence algorithm" that selects templates "based on an artificial intelligence model incorporating at least one of an industry of an organization of the one or more users, a geographic region of the one or more users, a demographic of the one or more users, or an organizational level of the one or more users." An AI algorithm applying a multi-dimensional artificial intelligence model to select and dynamically modify template content is not a mental process. The August 2025 Memo expressly states that "[c]laim limitations that encompass AI in a way that cannot be practically performed in the human mind do not fall within this grouping.".”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument has been asked and answered a variety of ways throughout prosecution. For the sake of argument, with respect to mental processes, actual mental performance of the abstract idea is not required, Further, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and that “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and Applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” In the present case, the claim limitations perform steps that are performed on a generic computer and/or computer environment, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
C. The claims do not recite a method of organizing human activity.
The Applicant respectfully argues “The claims do not organize human activity. The only human action is providing feedback data. Everything downstream - NLP parsing, attribute-aware categorization, classification, AI model-based template selection, AI-driven dynamic content modification, and platform-specific message generation - is performed by the recited AI-enabled machine components. The human feedback is merely data consumed by the AI pipeline. This is analogous to a user entering a search query into a search engine; the system's AI-driven operations are not "organizing" the human.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims and continues to be unsupported in the written description of the specification as originally filled. Second, and once again, this argument has been asked and answered a variety of ways throughout prosecution. For the sake of argument, it is worth noting in MPEP §2106 under “II. Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity,” certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. As applied in this case, a person interacting with a computer for “generating simulated phishing communications,” reasonably constitutes identifying the Applicant’s claims as an abstract idea in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong 2 - The claims integrate any alleged exception into a practical application by improving the operation of the simulated phishing campaign platform through AI
D. The claim as a whole reflects a particular arrangement of components and their required interactions.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Under Ex Parte Desjardins and the December 5, 2025 MPEP update, claims that reflect an improvement to how an AI/ML system itself operates integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The August 2025 Memo instructs: "In computer-related technologies, examiners can conclude that claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two by finding that a claim reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field." The Memo further instructs examiners to consider "whether the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.".”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s continued argument with regard to the Ex Parte Desjardins memo has been asked and answered above. As such, the argument continues to be unpersuasive.
E. The claims recite a particular way to achieve the outcome, not a generic instruction to apply an idea.
The Applicant respectfully argues “The specification at I [0080] identifies the technical problem: conventional simulated phishing systems could not determine why a user interacted with a simulated phishing communication: "reasons for the user interaction with the simulated phishing communication may not be known." The specification at T [0155] discloses the AI-driven technical solution: "recommendation engine 238 may include an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm to select a simulated phishing template based on a specific model" incorporating industry, geography, demographics, and organizational level, and "may dynamically modify the content of simulated phishing communications in response to the application of the model." This is an improvement to how the platform itself operates: the artificial intelligence algorithm of the recommendation engine applies its artificial intelligence model to both select an appropriate template and dynamically modify the template content based on processed feedback, user attributes, and classifications. This is not merely "applying" an abstract idea on a computer; it is a specific AI-driven improvement to the platform's template selection and content generation functionality, where the AI algorithm itself performs the dynamic adaptation of the system's output.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, artificial intelligence alone does not exempt the claims from subject-matter eligibility scrutiny. Specifically, in Recentive Analytics, Inc. V. Fox Corp. Slip opinion page 14 provides the following: “We see no merit to Recentive’s argument that its patents are eligible because they apply machine learning to this new field of use. We have long recognized that “[a]n abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment.” Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015);”
Second, using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning models to “generate simulated phishing communications,” is merely claiming the abstract idea itself. Specifically, in RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. Slip opinion pages 16-17 provide the following: “Recentive claims that the inventive concept in its patents is “using machine learning to dynamically generate optimized maps and schedules based on real-time data and update them based on changing conditions.” Appel- lant’s Br. 44. As the district court correctly recognized, see Recentive, 692 F. Supp. 3d at 456, this is no more than claiming the abstract idea itself. Such a position plainly fails to identify anything in the claims that would “‘trans- form’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566U.S. at 71).
In short, we perceive nothing in the claims, whether considered individually or in their ordered combination, that would transform the Machine Learning Training and Network Map patents into something “significantly more” than the abstract idea of generating event schedules and network maps through the application of machine learning. See SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1169–70; Broadband iTV, 113 F.4th at 1372.” As such, the argument is not persuasive.
F. The claims reflect an improvement in a technical field.
The Applicant respectfully argues “The amended claims reflect this improvement through specific limitations: (1) an NLP step that codifies freeform text into structured AI-processable inputs (1 [0138]); (2) a recommendation engine "comprising an artificial intelligence algorithm" that selects templates "based on an artificial intelligence model" incorporating multiple user and organizational dimensions (I [0155]); and (3) dynamic modification of template content by the artificial intelligence algorithm of the recommendation engine "in response to application of the artificial intelligence model" based on user profiles or classification groups (T [0155]). Under Desjardins, the claim need not explicitly recite the improvement; it is sufficient that the claim includes the components or steps that provide the improvement described in the specification. Here, the AI algorithm's model-based selection and AI-driven dynamic content modification are exactly the components that provide the disclosed improvement to platform operation. The December 2025 MPEP update further instructs that "examiners should not dismiss additional elements as mere "generic computer components' without considering whether such elements confer a technological improvement.".”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Once again, this argument has been asked and answered a variety of ways throughout prosecution. The Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
• 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);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Step 2B - The claims recite "significantly more" through AI-driven operations in a non-conventional ordered combination
G. The inventive concept arises from the ordered combination and inter-module dependencies.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Even if analysis proceeds to Step 2B, the amended claims provide significantly more than any alleged abstract idea through their AI-driven ordered combination. The claims now require: (a) NLP parsing of freeform user feedback into structured responses, a specific AI technique; (b) attribute-aware categorization incorporating the NLP-codified responses; (c) an AI algorithm applying a multi-dimensional artificial intelligence model (industry, geography, demographics, organizational level) combined with categorized feedback and classifications to select templates; (d) dynamic modification of template content by the artificial intelligence algorithm of the recommendation engine in response to application of the artificial intelligence model; and (e) generation and deployment of the AI-modified communications in platform-specific format. This ordered combination is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The Examiner's prior Berkheimer evidence addressed only generic hardware (user interface, storage, devices, servers); it did not address whether an artificial intelligence algorithm that applies an artificial intelligence model to dynamically modify simulated phishing communication content based on NLP-processed feedback, user attributes, and classifications is conventional. No such evidence exists because this specific AI-driven pipeline is the invention itself.
For at least all of the above reasons, Applicant requests reconsideration and submits that the amended independent Claims 1 and 12, as well as Claims 2-11 that depend on Claim 1 and Claims 13-22 that depend on Claim 12, recite patent eligible subject matter directed to an AI-driven improvement in the operation of a simulated phishing campaign platform for generating simulated phishing communications. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of Claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Once again, this argument has been asked and answered a variety of ways throughout prosecution. Regardless, the Applicant’s argument is conclusory and provides no evidence supporting the statement that “this specific AI-driven pipeline is the invention itself.” Instead, the Applicant’s claimed elements of “a user interface,” “storage,” “one or more devices” and “one or more servers,” are nothing more than generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements as previously described above in the rejection. As such, the Applicant’s claimed elements are reasonably interpreted as ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computer networking and does not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and for the reasons stated here and above, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00. 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, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights