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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 10, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to Office action was received on February 10, 2026.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, all of the prior art claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the corresponding 101 claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action.
Regarding the 101 rejections, Applicant first argues that the claims do not recite a judicial exception. As indicated in the 101 rejections, below in this Office action, Examiner finds that the claims recite a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea via “Certain method(s) of organizing human activity,” specifically in the form of:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): an offer to open a transaction account can be viewed as both a commercial and a legal interaction.
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages interactions between a financial entity and a potential customer, both of which may involve humans.
Applicant states that claim 1 does not attempt to claim the concept of “an offer to open a transaction account.” Applicant continues that, even if the Office believes that claim 1 involves “an offer to open a transaction account,” Applicant submits that this is not the appropriate standard under 101, referencing MPEP 2106.04(II)(a)(1).
In response, if Applicant’s argument is that none of the claims are of the same scope as the concept of “an offer to open a transaction account”, the 101 guidance’s meaning for reciting an abstract idea is not that the claim have the same scope as the abstract idea itself. Rather, the meaning is that the language of the claim includes language setting forth or describing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). The claim language can include language additional to the abstract-idea language, as demonstrated by that Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B of 101 analysis consider additional language beyond the abstract idea, that is in the claim.
Looking to representative claim 1, the claim features a number of steps which gather various input data associated with offering a transaction account to a user. This data is ultimately used to identify an alternative offer to the originally contemplated offer, to transmit to the user. Although claim 1 does not explicitly state that the alternative offer is also to open a transaction account, it does encompass such an offer, and Applicant’s specification-as-originally-filed (for example, paragraph [0001]) certainly supports that the alternative offer may be intended to be of a similar class of offer to the original offer. As Examiner states in the 101 rejections: “an offer to open a transaction account can be viewed as both a commercial and a legal interaction.” It should also be noted that Examiner has an additional argument for certain method(s) of organizing human activity, in the form of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” (see above and in the 101 rejections). Examiner also disagrees with Applicant regarding Examiner not using the appropriate standard. The subject matter subgroupings used by Examiner are from MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B and C). Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Applicant next argues that the claims are eligible because they integrate any judicial exception into a practical application by invoking the technological or computing improvement 101 consideration. In response, Examiner’s current analysis of the claims finds all of the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to be merely generic/general-purpose computing system components. Under USPTO 101 guidance, merely performing an abstract idea on generic/general-purpose computing system components, without more, does not render eligibility to such claims. Therefore, Examiner does not find the claims eligible via improving computing technology, as the additional elements are merely generic computing components. However, Applicant also makes the argument that the consideration also allows for eligibility via improvements to technologies other than computing technologies. This is correct with respect to the guidance. That being said, Examiner does not notice any improvements to other technologies in Applicant’s claims according to 101 guidance.
Applicant argues that the use of the predictive model in the claims to help identify an alternative offer is a technological improvement because it allows the system to predict whether the user qualifies for an account offer without requiring the user to submit an application for the account offer. Examiner disagrees with that this is a technological improvement, even a non-computing technological improvement, for the following reasons: First, there is no meaningful contribution to this argued improvement from the additional elements beyond the abstract idea, which is required for invoking the technological/computing improvement consideration under both Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B. This is because the additional elements are all generic computing components, and have not been improved, whether separately or in combination. The specific data processing performed and the use of the predictive model are part of the abstract idea itself. An improvement in the judicial exception by itself does not invoke eligibility under the technological/computing improvement consideration. Second, it appears that the field of Applicant’s alleged improvement is along the lines of marketing or financial management. These are not technological fields for 101 guidance purposes. Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the following element/limitation is other than well-understood, routine, and conventional activity and thus adds significantly more to any abstract idea under 101 guidance: “a predictive model that utilizes machine learning to generate a prediction of a probability score based at least in part upon an analysis of internal data and external data relative to the offer to open a transaction account”. The updated 101 rejections, below in this Office action, address this feature as follows. All of the feature is treated as part of the abstract idea, with the exception of the learning being machine learning -- machine learning is treated as generic computing component in the rejections because it is recited here at a high and general level. The rest of the feature is treated as part of the abstract idea because it is merely part of the data manipulations of the input data that the claims use to identify the alternative offer. For the “other than well-understood, routine, and conventional activity” consideration to be invoked under Step 2B, there must be meaningful contribution to the consideration from the additional elements beyond the judicial exception. Since the feature is merely abstract idea performed on generic computing components, without more, that is not the case here. Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recite(s):
- obtain a user request in response to receiving a selection associated with an offer to open a transaction account, the offer comprising a plurality of offer terms;
- identify a plurality of parameters associated with the user request;
- the plurality of parameters including a visited web page and a dwell time for an amount of time the client device has viewed the visited web page within the browser application;
- identify, based at least in part on the visited web page, the dwell time of the plurality of parameters for the user session, and a predictive model that utilizes learning to generate a prediction of a probability score based at least in part upon an analysis of internal data and external data relative to the offer to open a transaction account, an alternative offer, the alternative offer comprising an alternative plurality of offer terms;
- output the alternative offer to the user.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): an offer to open a transaction account can be viewed as both a commercial and a legal interaction.
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages interactions between a financial entity and a potential customer, both of which may involve humans.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- a system; a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device; receiving a selection via a selection of a link; establish a user session with a client device corresponding to the user request; obtaining data from the cookie data for the user session and a plurality of external data sources; a user session; retrieve cookie data from at least one tracking cookie for a browser application executed on the client device via the user session; a plurality of external data sources; a visited web page; viewing a visited web page within a browser application; machine learning; outputting via transmitting; a client device; a non-transitory, computer-readable medium, storing machine-readable instructions thereon that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, cause the computing device: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
(NOTE REGARDING THE TRACKING COOKIE REPRESENTING A GENERIC/GENERAL-PURPOSE COMPUTING SYSTEM COMPONENT: See the following two prior art references, each reference having a date that precedes Applicant's priority date:
(1) Wikipedia, "HTTP cookie," www.wikipedia.org, version of article dated 05 December 2023, retrieved on 04 October 2025: For example, the last paragraph of the first page of this reference states that tracking cookies are commonly used as ways to compile long-term records of individuals’ browsing histories -- a potential privacy concern that prompted European and U.S. lawmakers to take action in 2011. For further example, the “Tracking” section on the sixth page of the reference states: “Corporations exploit users’ web habits by tracking cookies to collect information about buying habits.”;
(2) Wikipedia, "Web tracking," www.wikipedia.org, version of article dated 27 December 2023, retrieved on 04 October 2025: In the section entitled “Methods of web tracking”, one of the subsections is “HTTP cookie”.)
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- a browser session (Claims 2, 9, and 16);
- data storage on the client device (Claims 2, 9, and 16);
- displaying (Claims 6, 13, and 19);
- a site (Claims 7, 14, and 20);
- interaction (Claims 7, 14, and 20).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 11 merely adds detail to the function of identifying the alternative offer.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a. Chirehdast, US 8660943 B1 (methods and systems for financial transactions);
b. Chandran, US 20080059352 A1 (systems and methods of ranking a plurality of credit card offers).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 PM.
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, NATHAN UBER can be reached at (571) 270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628