DETAILED ACTION
Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 12, 2026 has been entered.
Status
This communication is in response to Applicant’s RCE and accompanying “AMENDMENT WITH RCE” (hereinafter “Amendment”), both of which were filed on May 12, 2026. In the Amendment, Applicant amended Claims 1, 9 and 17; cancelled no claim(s); and added Claims 21-22. Claims 8 and 16 were previously cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-22 are currently pending and presented for examination. Of the pending claims, Claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent.
Original claims 1-20 were originally presented by Applicant and, therefore, have been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits per MPEP § 819 and MPEP § 821.03.
The present application (U.S. App. No. 18/395,920), filed after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0209508 of Best et al. (hereinafter “Best”) corresponds to a published version of this patent application (U.S. App. No. 18/395,920).
Priority/Benefit Claim
No claim(s) for benefit or priority exists in this application and, therefore, the effective filing date (EFD) of this application is its filing date of December 26, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
MPEP § 2001.06(b) states “prior art references from one application must be made of record in another subsequent application if such prior art references are ‘material to patentability’ of the subsequent application”.
Examiner notes similarity between this application (U.S. App. No. 18/395,920) and another Wells Fargo Bank application (U.S. App. No. 18/303,379), which published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0354803 of Sarvesetty et al. (hereinafter “Sarvesetty”). Examiner notes that these two applications (i.e., U.S. App. Nos. 18/395,920 and 18/303,379) have no common inventor(s) listed.
Response to Amendments
A Summary of the Response to Applicant’s Amendment:
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes rejections to Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); therefore, Examiner withdraws § 112(b) rejections to Claims 1-7, 9-15 & 17-20.
Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome the objection to Claim 9; therefore, the Examiner maintains the objection to Claim 9.
Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections to Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; therefore, the Examiner submits § 101 rejections to Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-22, as provided below.
Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome prior art rejections to Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103; therefore, the Examiner maintains/asserts § 103 rejections to Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-22, as provided below.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see Examiner’s “Response to Arguments” provided below.
CPC Classification Notes
Examiner notes CPC classifications G06Q 30/0224-233:
G06Q 30/00 Commerce
G06Q 30/02 • Marketing Price estimation or determination;
G06Q 30/0241 •• Advertisements
G06Q 30/0251 ••• Targeted advertisements
G06Q 30/0252 •••• based on events or environment
G06Q 30/0269 •••• based on user profile or attribute
G06Q 30/0271 ••••• Personalized advertisement
Claim Objection
Independent Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error(s). Examiner notes that Claim 9 appears to list four (4) elements of the apparatus (i.e., “communications hardware”; “language model circuitry”; “personalization recommendation circuitry”; and “personalization update circuitry”), but Claim 9 fails to recite any conjunction (e.g., “and”, “or”) showing the relationship of the four (4) elements in the list.
More specifically, Examiner notes that Claim 9 recites “…the apparatus comprising: communications hardware…; language model circuitry…; personalization recommendation circuitry…; wherein the apparatus further comprises personalization update circuitry…”; however, Claim 9 lacks a conjunction (e.g., “and”, “or”) between what Examiner believes are the last two elements of the recited apparatus: “personalization recommendation circuitry” and “personalization update circuitry”.
Claim 9 is improper since Claim 9 fails to provide proper structure of what elements are comprised of Applicant’s subject matter (i.e., apparatus) — faulty claim structure recited in Claim 19. Consequently, Claim 9 is objected to.
Appropriate correction(s) is required to Claim 9.
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 1-7, 9-15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP § 2111). In view of this standard and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-22 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-22 satisfy Step 1 enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Step 2A: Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-22 are rejected under § 101 because Applicant’s claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this finding is that Applicant’s claims recite making a recommendation (e.g., a set of personalized/targeted settings/preferences of advertising or promoting “product recommendations, rewards, or other personalized benefits” per as-filed specification ¶ [0002]; advertising privacy/preference; marketing privacy/preference, etc.) to an individual user based on information about the user (i.e., initiating event, which “may include all relevant communications” per published specification paragraph [0075], a life event such as saving for college, etc.) and allowing the user to respond to the recommendation (i.e., user response, “user confirms”, etc.), such as the user accepting the recommendation that was made/offered to the user, as more particularly recited in Applicant’s pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements): first and second outputs; a prompt; a user response; user interfaces (UIs) comprising a window (a user interface and a modified user interface comprising a graphical representation); each of Applicant’s recited steps/operations of receiving, generating, providing, presenting, modifying, updating and causing execution; (only independent Claims 1 and 9 and corresponding dependent claims) communications hardware, language model circuitry, personalization recommendation circuitry, and personalization update circuitry; (only Claims 4-5, 12-13 and 20-21) detecting selection; (only Claims 6, 14 and 22) the language model circuitry comprising a large language model; (only Claim 9) an apparatus comprising configured communications hardware, configured language model circuitry, configured personalization recommendation circuitry, and configured personalization update circuitry; (only Claim 17 and corresponding dependent claims) a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing software instructions that, when executed, cause an apparatus to perform. However, utilizing information about an individual user (i.e., initiating event, such as a life event, saving for college, etc.) to make a recommendation to the user (e.g., a set of personalized/targeted settings/preferences of advertising or promoting “product recommendations, rewards, or other personalized benefits”, advertising privacy/preference; marketing privacy/preference, etc.), as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims and further explained below, is within a certain method of organizing human activity — (i) fundamental economic principle or practice; (ii) commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); and/or (iii) managing personal behavior. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) provides examples of “fundamental economic principles or practices” and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) provides additional discussion and examples of commercial or legal interactions. This judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea exception) is not integrated into a practical application because each claim as a whole, having the combination of additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and, therefore, the pending claims are “directed to” a judicial exception under USPTO Step 2A. More specifically, each claim as a whole does not appear to reflect the combination of additional elements as: (1) improving the functioning of a computer itself or improving another technology or technical field, (2) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine/manufacture that is integral to the claim, (3) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (4) 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. Instead, any improvement is to the underlying abstract idea of using information about a user (i.e., initiating event) to make a recommendation to the user. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12590, Slip. Op. 13 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract realm.”). Examiner notes that Applicant's recited use or usage of a “language model” in Claims 1, 6, 9-10, 14 and 22 appear as a high-level black box with no detail about any language algorithm itself or any language processes/logic, such as how Applicant's model operates on input data to produce an output(s), such as Applicant’s “first output” and “second output” as recited in each of independent Claims 1, 9 and 17. In addition, Examiner notes that no detail of any training algorithm appears to be mentioned in Applicant's disclosure and, therefore, no specific way of training the language algorithm/model exists within Applicant's recited use of a “language model”. See analysis in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Case No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025), which found “The machine learning technology described…is conventional, as the…specifications demonstrate” (page 11 of Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp.). Similarly, Applicant’s claims “do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning model[] to be applied” (see page 18 of Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp.). Consequently, Applicant's mere recitation to "language model" concepts, as currently recited, is not sufficient to amount to a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis. Applicant’s additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not appear to be integrated into a practical application since they embody mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, do no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a computer network environment, such as “FIG. 1 illustrates an example environment 100 within which… [Applicant’s] embodiments may operate” (per ¶ [0024] of Applicant’s as-filed specification) with “user device 106 and the server device 108 may be embodied by any computing devices known in the art” (per ¶ [0026] of Applicant’s as-filed specification) and “system 102 may be implemented as one or more computing devices or server” and the “term ‘server’… refers to any computing device capable of functioning as a server, such as… any other type of server” (per respective ¶¶ [0025] and [0020] of Applicant’s as-filed specification)}, and amount to no more than combining the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving, detecting, generating, modifying, updating, presenting, providing and causing execution, as further explained below. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B: Under Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), Applicant’s instant claims do not recite limitations, taken individually and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because Applicant’s claims do not recite, as further explained in detail below, an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, an application with or by a particular machine, a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, unconventional steps confining the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in independent Claims 1 and 8 are performed by generically-recited “communications hardware” and “circuitry”, while independent Claim 17 is performed by a generically recited “an apparatus”, these claim limitations (taken individually and in combination) are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a computer network environment, such as “FIG. 1 illustrates an example environment 100 within which… [Applicant’s] embodiments may operate” (per ¶ [0024] of Applicant’s as-filed specification) with “user device 106 and the server device 108 may be embodied by any computing devices known in the art” (per ¶ [0026] of Applicant’s as-filed specification) and “system 102 may be implemented as one or more computing devices or server” and the “term ‘server’… refers to any computing device capable of functioning as a server, such as… any other type of server” (per respective ¶¶ [0025] and [0020] of Applicant’s as-filed specification)}, and no more than a combination of the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving, detecting, generating, modifying, updating, presenting, providing and causing execution, as further explained below. As mentioned above, the claim elements in addition to the abstract idea arguably include: first and second outputs; a prompt; a user response; user interfaces (UIs) comprising a window (a user interface and a modified user interface comprising a graphical representation); each of Applicant’s recited steps/operations of receiving, generating, providing, presenting, modifying, updating and causing execution; (only independent Claims 1 and 9 and corresponding dependent claims) communications hardware, language model circuitry, personalization recommendation circuitry, and personalization update circuitry; (only Claims 4-5, 12-13 and 20-21) detecting selection; (only Claims 6, 14 and 22) the language model circuitry comprising a large language model; (only Claim 9) an apparatus comprising configured communications hardware, configured language model circuitry, configured personalization recommendation circuitry, and configured personalization update circuitry; (only Claim 17 and corresponding dependent claims) a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing software instructions that, when executed, cause an apparatus to perform. However, each of these components is recited at a high level of generality that taken individually and in combination perform corresponding generic computer functions of receiving, detecting, generating, modifying, updating, presenting, providing and causing execution — there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology since the additional elements taken individually and collectively merely provide conventional computer implementations known to the industry. Furthermore, Examiner notes that none of the processes/steps recited in the pending claims taken individually and in combination impose a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope since none of recited processes/steps taken individually and in combination involve activity that amounts to more than generic computer functions/activity. The steps/processes of receiving, detecting, generating, modifying, updating, presenting, providing and causing execution, as currently recited individually and in combination in Applicant’s claims, are considered to be generic computer functions since they involve having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use previously known to the industry — each of the steps of receiving encompasses a data input/loading or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)}; each of the steps of detecting encompasses a data recognition/inquiry function or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data recognition); each of the steps of updating encompasses a data saving or depositing function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Cyberfone”; and Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data storage}; and each of the steps of generating, modifying, presenting, providing and causing execution encompasses a data output/transmittal function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014)}. Also Examiner notes it may be worth being mindful of the “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” document, at page 7, second and sixth bullet points (July 30, 2015) regarding various well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer. Employing well-known computer functions individually and in combination to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the computer-implemented abstract idea in Flook (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978)) to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims do not satisfy Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Consequently, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. For information regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, please see Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instructional materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes guidance, memoranda, and updates regarding SME under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 (AIA ) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the AIA as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0257577 of Grandison et al. (hereinafter “Grandison”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0264520 of Mark Cummings (hereinafter “Cummings”).
Regarding Claim 1, Grandison discloses a method for customizing a set of personalization settings for a user, the method comprising:
providing, by communications hardware and to the user, an offer linked to a target setting recommendation (e.g., providing an offer linked to a target setting recommendation —Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]);
receiving, by the communications hardware, a user response to the offer (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0027] and [0033]);
receiving, by the communications hardware, initiating event data regarding an initiating event (e.g., receiving data about an event associated with a user, the received event to be used to trigger a 1st output generation —Grandison at ¶¶ [0024]–[0025]);
generating, by language model circuitry and using the initiating event data, a first output (e.g., generating the 1st output based on the triggering event —Grandison at ¶¶ [0024]–[0025] and [0028]–[0029]);
determining, by personalization recommendation circuitry and based on the first output, a target setting from the set of personalization settings and the target setting recommendation, wherein the target setting and the target setting recommendation are related to the initiating event (e.g., “privacy managers having a privacy recommendation component for managing privacy settings” —Grandison at ¶ [0007]; “privacy settings as determined by privacy manager…. custom user privacy settings” —Grandison at ¶ [0020]; and Grandison at ¶¶ [0025]–[0027]);
generating, by the language model circuitry, a prompt, wherein the prompt provides information about the target setting recommendation (e.g., “privacy settings as determined by privacy manager…. display current and recommended privacy settings…. a user may…select either current privacy settings, recommended privacy settings… accept custom user privacy settings” —Grandison at ¶ [0020]; “a user may choose whether or not to select recommended privacy settings” such as whether the “user's privacy settings will be changed to reflect the recommended settings” —Grandison at ¶¶ [0027] and [0031], respectively; Grandison at ¶¶ [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]; and Figure 4 of Grandison);
presenting, by the communications hardware, the prompt to the user (e.g.,
Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]; and Figure 4 of Grandison);
receiving, by the communications hardware and in response to the prompt, a user response to the prompt (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]);
generating, by the language model circuitry and using the user response to the prompt, a second output (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]; and Figure 4 of Grandison);
updating, by the personalization recommendation circuitry, the target setting recommendation based on the first output and the second output from the language model circuitry (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]; and Figure 4 of Grandison); and
in an instance in which executing the target setting recommendation requires modifying the set of personalization settings: generating, based on the set of personalization settings and the target setting recommendation, an updated set of personalization settings (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]; Figure 4 of Grandison; “Displaying privacy settings on an electronic computing device” —Grandison at ¶ [0020]),
modifying, based on the updated set of personalization settings, the offer, and the user response to the offer, a user interface to produce a modified user interface (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]; and Figure 4 of Grandison); wherein the user interface and the modified user interface comprise a window (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]; Figure 4 of Grandison; “Displaying privacy settings on an electronic computing device” —Grandison at ¶ [0020]), wherein the modified user interface comprises an indication of the updated set of personalization settings presented within the window (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]; “a user's privacy settings will be changed” and “Displaying privacy settings on an electronic computing device” —Grandison at ¶¶ [0031] and [0020]; and Figure 4 of Grandison), wherein the modified user interface comprises a graphical representation of the updated set of personalization settings (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]; “a user's privacy settings will be changed” and “Displaying privacy settings on an electronic computing device” —Grandison at ¶¶ [0031] and [0020]; “graphically display privacy settings” and “graph 408… indicate relative strength of privacy settings” —Grandison at ¶¶ [0020] and [0032]; and Figure 4 of Grandison);
presenting, by the communications hardware, the updated set of personalization settings to the user through the modified user interface, wherein the updated set of personalization settings comprises the target setting and the target setting recommendation (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]; Figure 4 of Grandison; and “Displaying privacy settings on an electronic computing device” —Grandison at ¶ [0020]), and
in an instance in which the user confirms the updated set of personalization settings, updating, by personalization update circuitry, the set of personalization settings according to the target setting recommendation (e.g., “accept custom user privacy settings” and “a user's privacy settings will be changed to reflect the recommended settings” —Grandison at ¶¶ [0020] and [0031]; and Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]), but Grandison fails to explicitly disclose: the offer including an incentive offer including an indication of a transaction; wherein the initiating event data comprises an indication of the incentive offer and the user response to the incentive offer; the prompt including a conversation prompt; the window including a conversation window; and causing execution of the transaction related to the incentive offer. However, Cummings teaches a conversational messaging application or a personal artificial intelligence assistant (i.e., AI assistant) running on a client device that prompts a user for input in the form of a user response (e.g., Cummings at ¶ [0082]); providing promotional advertisements (e.g., Cummings at ¶¶ [0133]–[0134]); utilizing an application management service to maintain user data, such as financial goals and life events of the user as well as providing context-specific advice in the form of AI suggestions subject to financial goals and life events (e.g., Cummings at ¶¶ [0057] and [0145]); the offer including an incentive offer including an indication of a transaction, wherein the initiating event data comprises an indication of the incentive offer and the user response to the incentive offer, and causing execution of the transaction related to the incentive offer (e.g., Cummings at ¶¶ [0130]–[0133], [0135] and [0140]–[0141]); a prompt to the user including a conversation prompt that prompts the user for input, as well as a user interface window including a conversation window for interfacing with the user in a conversational manner (e.g., Cummings at ¶¶ [0082], [0130]–[0131], [0135], [0140]–[0141], [0145], [0149] and [0363]; “natural language processing/understanding (NLP/NLU)” —Cummings at ¶ [0363]; and Figures 8A–8E of Cummings). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the offer including an incentive offer including an indication of a transaction; wherein the initiating event data comprises an indication of the incentive offer and the user response to the incentive offer; the prompt including a conversation prompt; the window including a conversation window; and causing execution of the transaction related to the incentive offer, as taught by Cummings, into the method/system disclosed by Grandison, which is directed toward providing privacy settings to a user and prompting the user to select/accept privacy settings (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]; and “a user may choose whether or not to select recommended privacy settings” such as whether the “user's privacy settings will be changed to reflect the recommended settings” —Grandison at ¶¶ [0027] and [0031]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grandison in view of Cummings as applied to Claim 1 above and Grandison teaching: determining, by the personalization recommendation circuitry and based on the first output and the second output from the language model circuitry, a profile setting, wherein the profile setting determines the set of personalization settings from among a plurality of sets of personalization settings (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grandison in view of Cummings as applied to Claim 2 above and Grandison teaching in an instance in which the profile setting differs from a currently active profile setting: updating, by the personalization update circuitry, the currently active profile setting to match the profile setting (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]); and updating, by the personalization update circuitry, the set of personalization settings according to the profile setting (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grandison in view of Cummings as applied to Claim 2 above and Grandison teaching wherein the profile setting is an incognito profile setting and the method further comprises: detecting, by the personalization update circuitry, selection of the incognito profile setting (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]); and updating, by the personalization update circuitry, the set of personalization settings so that personal information is not retained (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grandison in view of Cummings as applied to Claim 2 above and Grandison teaching wherein the profile setting is a sandbox profile setting, and the method further comprising: detecting, by the personalization update circuitry, selection of the sandbox profile setting (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]); and updating, by the personalization update circuitry, the set of personalization settings so that personal information is retained only within a sandbox environment (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grandison in view of Cummings as applied to Claim 1 above and Grandison teaching: receiving, by the communications hardware, a user data update, wherein the initiating event data comprises details of the user data update (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0024]–[0025]), but Grandison fails to explicitly teach wherein the user data update comprises a life event related to the user. However, Cummings teaches a conversational messaging application or a personal artificial intelligence assistant (i.e., AI assistant) running on a client device that prompts a user for input in the form of a user response (e.g., Cummings at ¶ [0082]); providing promotional advertisements (e.g., Cummings at ¶¶ [0133]–[0134]); utilizing an application management service to maintain user data wherein a user data update comprises a life event related to the user (e.g., Cummings at ¶¶ [0040], [0046], [0057] and [0145]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the user data update comprises a life event related to the user, as taught by Cummings, into the method/system taught by Grandison in view of Cummings, which is directed toward providing privacy settings to a user and the user selecting/accepting privacy settings based on information related to the user (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Regarding Claim 9, Grandison in view of Cummings teaches an apparatus for customizing a set of personalization settings for a user, the apparatus comprising communications hardware and circuitry (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0013]–[0018]) to perform respective processes/operations as recited in Claim 1, and, therefore, Claim 9 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 10-15 recite substantially similar subject matter to that of respective Claims 2-7 and, therefore, Claims 10-15 are rejected on the same basis(es) as Claims 2-7, respectively.
Regarding Claim 17, Grandison in view of Cummings teaches a computer program product for customizing a set of personalization settings for a user, the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing software instructions that, when executed, performs (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0013]–[0018]) respective processes/operations as recited in Claim 1, and, therefore, Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 18-21 recite substantially similar subject matter to that of respective Claims 2-5 and, therefore, Claims 18-21 are rejected on the same basis(es) as Claims 2-5, respectively.
Claims 6, 14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the AIA as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0257577 (“Grandison”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0264520 (“Cummings”), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,875,123 issued to Ben David et al. (hereinafter “Ben David”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grandison in view of Cummings as applied to Claim 1 above and Grandison teaching wherein the initiating event data derives from a database (e.g. Grandison at ¶¶ [0023]–[0025]; and Figure 1 of Grandison), but Grandison fails to explicitly teach wherein the language model circuitry comprises a large language model. However, Ben David teaches financial advice or planning (e.g., Ben David at Col. 4, lines 29-33); “machine learning advice generation… leverages customer data, fine-tuned models, reinforcement learning, and problem classification to provide highly personalized advice. Users can interact with the system by either asking their own questions or automatically generating commonly asked and useful advice-related queries. Through continuous refinement and evaluation, the system can deliver valuable and actionable guidance tailored to individual needs of each user” (e.g., Ben David at Col. 2, line 65 – Col. 3, line 9); as well as a language model circuitry comprising a large language model (e.g., Ben David at Col. 3, lines 10-13 and 20-41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the language model circuitry comprises a large language model, as taught by Ben David, into the method/system taught by Grandison in view of Cummings, which is directed toward providing settings or options to a user and the user selecting/accepting settings or options (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]; and “a user may choose whether or not to select recommended privacy settings” such as whether the “user's privacy settings will be changed to reflect the recommended settings” —Grandison at ¶¶ [0027] and [0031]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 14 recites substantially similar subject matter to that of Claim 6 and, therefore, Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis(es) as Claim 6.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grandison in view of Cummings as applied to Claim 17 above and Grandison teaching wherein the initiating event data is derived from a database (e.g. Grandison at ¶¶ [0023]–[0025]; and Figure 1 of Grandison), but Grandison fails to explicitly teach wherein the software instructions when executed, cause the apparatus to generate the conversation prompt using a large language model. However, Ben David teaches financial advice or planning (e.g., Ben David at Col. 4, lines 29-33); “machine learning advice generation… leverages customer data, fine-tuned models, reinforcement learning, and problem classification to provide highly personalized advice. Users can interact with the system by either asking their own questions or automatically generating commonly asked and useful advice-related queries. Through continuous refinement and evaluation, the system can deliver valuable and actionable guidance tailored to individual needs of each user” (e.g., Ben David at Col. 2, line 65 – Col. 3, line 9); as well as wherein software instructions when executed, cause an apparatus to generate the conversation prompt using a large language model (e.g., Ben David at Col. 3, lines 10-13 and 20-41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the software instructions when executed, cause the apparatus to generate the conversation prompt using a large language model, as taught by Ben David, into the method/system taught by Grandison in view of Cummings, which is directed toward providing settings or options to a user and the user selecting/accepting settings or options (e.g., Grandison at ¶¶ [0020], [0026]–[0027], [0031] and [0033]; and “a user may choose whether or not to select recommended privacy settings” such as whether the “user's privacy settings will be changed to reflect the recommended settings” —Grandison at ¶¶ [0027] and [0031]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Amendment filed on May 12, 2026, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner notes further recitation above to prior art references Grandison and Cummings in an effort to assist Applicant given Applicant’s amendments and arguments in “Amendment”.
Applicant's Arguments in the Amendment
(Pages 12-15) Applicant asserts that the pending claims, as currently amended, are drawn to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
(Pages 15-16) Applicant asserts that independent Claims 1, 9 and 17, as currently amended, are patentable over Grandison in view of Cummings.
Examiner’s Response to Applicant's Arguments
Please see updated/modified § 101 rejections above regarding pending claims being drawn to ineligible subject matter in view of considering all relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole including amended portions of the independent Claims 1, 9 and 17. Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Claim 1 recites “modifying … a user interface”, Examiner notes that unlike sample Claim 1 of Example 37, nothing in Applicant’s Claim 1 recites a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to a user based on usage that would result in an improved user interface for electronic devices. {e.g., see discussion below regarding “dynamic” information in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 16-1077 (Fed. Cir. 2017)}. Instead Applicant’s Claim 1 reciting “modifying … a user interface” is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (user interface). Therefore, this additional element of “modifying … a user interface” does not integrate Applicant’s abstract idea into a practical application, as currently recited in Appellant’s independent claims — Applicant’s recited user interfaces (UIs), as currently recited, amount to no more than “generic user interfaces” analogous to the user interface in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 16-1077 (Fed. Cir. 2017), which the Federal Circuit held to be a “generic interface” even though the “user interface … displays the dynamic document to the user to permit the user to make modifications to the document” (Id. at page 12):
“The resulting dynamic document, in turn, is nothing more than an interface for displaying and organizing this underlying data. These features, therefore, do not alter our conclusion that the claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data of particular documents” — Pages 14-15 of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 16-1077 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
“And the recited dynamic document provides little more than an unspecified set of rules for displaying and organizing MRTs in a user interface akin to the generic interfaces we have elsewhere explained impart no inventive concept. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1370 (finding that the recited “interactive interface” was not a “specific application of the abstract idea that provides an inventive concept”); Affinity, 838 F.3d at 1262 (characterizing a “graphical user interface” as a “generic feature” of the invention).” —Page 16 of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 16-1077 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Regarding § 103, please see citations to prior art references of Grandison in view of Cummings in the § 103 rejections above regarding amended portions of Applicant’s independent claims. Examiner notes that during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation”. In view of this standard, and the § 112(b) issues noted above, Examiner asserts § 103 rejections to Applicant’s amended claims, as noted above under § 103. In addition, Examiner notes that patent documents are relevant as prior art for all they contain and that “[a] reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments” —MPEP § 2123.
Conclusion
The following references are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and are being made of record albeit the references are not relied upon as a basis for rejection in this Office action:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0209116 of Leung et al. (hereinafter “Leung”) for “provides a communication service to users via a messaging application (e.g., chat or messaging capability)” with “conversational commerce services” —Leung at ¶¶ [0200] and [0182]; displaying preferences to a user in a user interface and to accept user input (e.g., spoken input) to manage those preferences, such as an option to “manage preferences” (e.g., Leung at ¶ [0247]; and “The user interface … include an option to “manage preferences” or otherwise to provide user input on preferences for accessing access-restricted content” — Leung at ¶ [0066]); a user's interactions with a user interface being analyzed using natural language processing techniques to determine context or intent of the user (e.g., Leung at ¶ [0247]); “user's interactions with the user interface 1620 are analyzed using, e.g., natural language processing techniques, to determine context or intent of the user, which may be treated in a manner similar to “direct” user input.” —Leung at ¶ [0247]; and “the service provider can enable conversational commerce via conversational commerce services, which can use … machine learning mechanisms to analyze… voice inputs into a virtual assistant… to determine intents of user(s) 1214…. Service provider can utilize determined intents to automate customer service, offer promotions, provide recommendations, or otherwise interact with customers in real-time” —Leung at ¶ [0182].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0081837 of Polleri et al. (hereinafter “Polleri”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0380171 of BONAT (hereinafter “Bonat”) for “result in insights and recommendations and ways to improve the user's privacy preferences. For example, if the user's privacy preferences are overly restrictive, the recommendation may be to allow the user to permit the privacy policy manager to override certain restrictions if the user wishes to continue to access the application or website provided by the entity. In one embodiment, privacy policy manager may require user permission to make any changes to the user's privacy preferences” —Bonat at ¶ [0105]; “In step 245, if the user has enabled automatic actions to be taken, or if the user approves the recommended action, the recommended action may be executed by the privacy policy manager and/or the privacy policy application. In one embodiment, the user's acceptance or rejection of the action may be provided to a machine learning model that may then adjust the user's privacy preferences and/or actions to be taken. In addition, the outcome of the action taken, such as whether additional actions were needed, etc. may be considered” —Bonat at ¶ [0107]; and “recommended action to be reused to train updated versions of the models. These feedback loops may be manual (e.g., where humans review the output, determine if it is correct, and enter that correct value into a database. The human can be the user who is interacting within the system (was this choice correct for you? Y/N) or an expert user that reviews the output of an ML prediction and of a user recommendation); automated, such as with active learning (e.g., where a learning algorithm may interactively query the user), reinforcement learning (e.g., where a learning algorithm is put into interactive environment by trial and error using feedback from its own actions and experiences), combinations thereof, etc. The algorithms (e.g., for privacy policy segment valuation, user privacy preference assessment, and/or recommended action) may be updated using this new labeled data” —Bonat at ¶ [0110].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0355356 of TOKUCHI et al. (hereinafter “Tokuchi”) for “notification and change of setting of a program portion stored in the terminal apparatus 10 may be made by exchanging messages between the personal assistant…and a user” —Tokuchi at ¶ [0037]; and “a conversation partner having a function of interacting with a user is used. The conversation partner is a personal assistant (operation assistant) which replies to inquiries from a user. The personal assistant… receives an utterance of a user, generates a reply such as an answer to the speech by analyzing the content of an utterance, and notifies the user of the reply. For instance, speech of a user is performed by character input, voice input, or image input, and reply is performed by character output, voice output, or image output… The personal assistant analyzes the content of the speech of a user by applying… natural language processing” (NLP) —Tokuchi at ¶ [0030].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0108353 of Sadeh et al. (hereinafter “Sadeh”) for “… personal privacy assistant app receives… collects information about the user; identifies at least one recommended permission setting for the first app… such that the recommended permission setting is user-specific” —Abstract of Sadeh; and “FIGS. 5, 8A-8C and 9 are…interfaces through which the user can accept or deny the recommended permission settings” —Sadeh at ¶ [0016].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0029566 of Grandison et al. (hereinafter “Grandison ‘566”) for “MANAGING PRIVACY SCORES” —Title of Grandison ‘566.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mathew Syrowik whose telephone number is 313-446-4862. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM (Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at telephone number 517-270-3948. 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 Patent Center. Status information of published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or by email at EBC@uspto.gov. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conference using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please email Mathew.Syrowik@USPTO.gov or applicant may use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. For additional information or questions, please contact the Inventors Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199 (toll free), 571-272-1000 (local), or 1-800-877-8339 (TDD/TTY).
/Mathew Syrowik/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights