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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to Office action was received on June 11, 2026.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the corresponding 101 claim rejections, from the previous Office action, has been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, please note the new claim objections, below in this Office action.
Regarding the 101 rejections, Applicant first argues that the claims do not recite a judicial exception, adding that merely involving a judicial exception does not indicate that a claim recites the judicial exception. The meaning of “recites” here is addressed in MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), which states:
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement."
It should also be noted that, if a claim is determined to recite a judicial exception in Step 2A, Prong 1, of 101 analysis, the analysis continues to Step 2A, Prong 2, as well as possibly Step 2B. Both Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B include the consideration of “additional elements beyond the judicial exception” in the claim. In those further steps, a claim reciting a judicial exception may or may not be determined to be eligible. Therefore, it is important to note that the presence of other “additional” elements beyond the judicial-exception elements in a claim do not change a determination that a judicial exception is recited in the claim in Step 2A, Prong 1.
Taking the above into account and looking at representative independent claim 1, it is clear that the claim recites (that is, sets forth or describes) a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea via the subject matter category of “Certain method(s) of organizing human activity” via the recognized subgroupings having to do with commercial/legal interactions and managing human relationships/behaviors. The ultimate purpose of claim 1 is to determine an appropriate offer to present to a user. An offer commonly relates to both a commercial and a legal interaction. In addition, both the offeror and the offeree parties may involve humans. For example, for a credit card offer, there may be a human consumer and human bank employees involved. Therefore, it may also be said that the claim recites managing human relationships/behaviors. Thus, Examiner disagrees with this Applicant argument.
Applicant next addresses the topic of if any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Applicant presents paragraphs [0043]-[0044] of Applicant’s specification to attempt to show description of a technical improvement over the prior art. The paragraphs discuss the use of predictive modeling to determine an appropriate account offer to make to a user. Even if this systematic approach does result in a more appropriate offer being presented to a user, such an offer that they are very likely to be qualified for, or an offer that they are very likely to accept, these would be business or organizational process improvements, as opposed to technological improvements under 101 analysis. Even where machine learning is explicitly involved, as in Applicant’s claim 1, the mere training and applying of a machine-learning model, in and of itself, is not necessarily enough to render eligibility. For example, see the USPTO’s 101 examples, Example 47, claim 2.
The decision in Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567, September 26, 2025, represents an door to eligibility for claims which recite a technological improvement in the field of machine learning. However, Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s specification and did not find any discussion about how the currently claimed specific use of machine learning represents a technological improvement to the field of machine learning. In making this determination, a relevant improvement would not be something like determining an offer that the consumer would be more qualified for, or determining an offer that the consumer would be more likely to accept. Rather, an example of a machine-learning improvement might be something like a specific change to a machine-learning model or its use that arrives at solutions quicker.
In addition, regarding the claimed revision and further training based on the revision, see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025), p. 1212, which discusses how the requirements that a machine learning model be "iteratively trained" or dynamically adjusted do not represent a technological improvement. Therefore, Examiner does not find that feature to be helpful for eligibility.
Applicant continues with discussion that the claimed use of both the specific first predictive model and the specific second predictive model integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. In response, again, Examiner could not find any discussion in Applicant’s specification of how configuring the model usage in the claimed way results in any kind of machine-learning technology improvement, as opposed to a business or organizational (that is, non-technological) improvement. Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Regarding the “significantly more” analysis, Applicant presents three machine-learning training steps in the claims as being other than well-understood, routine, and conventional. Examiner already addressed above how the mere training and usage of machine-learning models, without more, is not enough for eligibility, including Applicant’s further training based on the revision. See the above discussion. 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 Objections
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In the fourth line of claim 3, please replace the word “mode” with --model-- to correct an apparent typographical error.
b. In the third line of claim 10, please replace the word “mode” with --model-- to correct an apparent typographical error.
c. In the fourth line of claim 17, please replace the word “mode” with --model-- to correct an apparent typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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;
- train a first predictive model capable of using learning to generate an alternate offer;
- train a second predictive model capable of using 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;
- identify, based at least in part on the visited web page, the dwell time of the plurality of parameters for the user session, the first predictive model, and the second 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;
- receive a revision of the offer terms;
- further train the first predictive model based at least in part on the revision;
- 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).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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
Prosecution Insights