Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 06/18/2025. Claims 1, 3, 8 – 9, 11, 16 – 17, & 19 were amended and claims 2, 10, & 18 were cancelled in a reply filed 09/15/2025. Claims 1, 3 – 9, 11 – 17, & 19 – 20 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Novel/Nonobvious Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3 – 9, 11 – 17, & 19 – 20 are not rejected under the prior art. In particular, the cited prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the particular combination of limitations of independent claims 1, 9, & 17, including the functionality of “executing computer logic to classify the data, wherein the computer logic is configured to classify the data using one or more rule sets stored in an instructions database, wherein the one or more rule sets are based at least on one or more enterprise rules associated with attributes of a complainant, a complaint type, or the complaint and comprise conditional statements that analyze attributes of the complaint to determine the complaint type” and “wherein controlling comprises executing instructions that specify at least spatial placement, visibility, and interactive behavior of said first text element and input fields within the first user interface.”
Response to Arguments
The claims filed 09/15/2025 have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pp. 9 – 11, that “claim 1, as a whole, integrates any alleged mental process into a practical application by reciting a specific manner of automatically displaying and updating data in a user interface which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices,” and points to the specification ([0051], PGPUB), which states that “the claimed techniques, by virtue of inclusion of metadata instructions for user interface generation, can enable an "enterprise [to] more easily edit and standardize user interfaces across the various mobile applications. Further, by using metadata of text elements and other data elements to generate user interfaces, errors in user interfaces are more easily fixed across multiple applications."
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the additional elements associated with generating interfaces based on rules constitutes a mere instruction to apply the recited judicial exception using generically-recited computing components. For example, the functionality of instructing a computing device to display information in a particular arrangement based on “display rules” (i.e., instructions) amounts to no more than mere instruction “Apply it” using generic computer components or (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). That the source of the “display rules” is “metadata” included with retrieved “text elements” does not amount to an improvement to the functionality of a computing device or any other technology. Furthermore, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)).
Examiner respectfully submits that any GUI is necessarily generated based on instructions implemented by a computing device. The instant claims merely specify that the instructions (i.e., “display rules”) are obtained from a particular source, which is analogous to retrieving information in a memory. Examiner notes that “Storing and retrieving information in memory” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), and furthermore has been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). Therefore, the acquiring of the “metadata” comprising “display rules” “from a database of text elements” does not provide integration into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong Two – nor does it amount to significantly more under Step 2B. The instant claims are not directed to a new type of user interface nor to an improvement to GUI technology; rather, the claims merely instruct the practitioner to implement the management of a customer service questionnaire using generically-recited computing components. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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, 3 – 9, 11 – 17, & 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 & 3 – 8 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 9 & 11 – 16 are directed to a product (i.e., a manufacture). Claims 17 & 19 – 20 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1, 3 – 9, 11 – 17, & 19 – 20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, 9, & 17 substantially recite: classify the data… classify the data using one or more rule sets…, wherein the one or more rule sets are based at least on one or more enterprise rules associated with attributes of a complainant, a complaint type, or the complaint and comprise conditional statements that analyze attributes of the complaint to determine the complaint type; configure a first text element of the set of text elements and one or more input fields…; receiving in the one or more input fields an input; and automatically providing, responsive to the input satisfying one or more conditions associated with the set of text elements… a second text element of the set of text elements.
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a business relation or commercial interaction. That is, the functions in the context of this claim encompass managing a customer service interaction with a customer. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).” Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 9, & 17, as a whole, amounts to merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) as well as adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites the additional computer-related elements of “user device,” “executing computer logic to,” “wherein the computer logic is configured to,” “executing instructions,” and “user interface.” Claim 9 recites the additional computer-related elements of “non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions,” “processors,” “execute computer logic,” “wherein the computer logic is configured to,” “executing instructions,” and “user interface.” Claim 17 recites the additional computer-related elements of “system,” “one or more processors configured to,” “execute computer logic,” “wherein the computer logic is configured to,” “executing instructions,” and “user interface.” Claims 1, 9, & 17 further recite the additional elements of “receiving, from a user device via a network, data associated with a complaint,” “stored in an instructions database,” “retrieving, from a database of text elements, a set of text elements associated with the complaint type,” “wherein one or more of the text elements includes metadata comprising display rules associated with a user interface,” “controlling generation and arrangement of a first user interface based on the display rules from the metadata,” “wherein controlling comprises executing instructions that specify at least spatial placement, visibility, and interactive behavior of said first text element and input fields within the first user interface,” “updated user interface,” and “the second text element arranged based on the display rules of the metadata.”
The additional computer-related elements of “user device,” “executing computer logic to,” “wherein the computer logic is configured to,” “executing instructions,” “user interface,” “non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions,” “processors,” and “execute computer logic” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of “receiving, from a user device via a network, data associated with a complaint,” “stored in an instructions database,” and “retrieving, from a database of text elements, a set of text elements associated with the complaint type,” when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of “wherein one or more of the text elements includes metadata comprising display rules associated with a user interface,” “controlling generation and arrangement of a first user interface based on the display rules from the metadata,” “wherein controlling comprises executing instructions that specify at least spatial placement, visibility, and interactive behavior of said first text element and input fields within the first user interface,” “updated user interface,” and “the second text element arranged based on the display rules of the metadata,” when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) as well as adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Furthermore, the extra-solution functionality of “receiving, from a user device via a network, data associated with a complaint,” “stored in an instructions database,” and “retrieving, from a database of text elements, a set of text elements associated with the complaint type” has been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), noting: “Electronic recordkeeping,” “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” & “Storing and retrieving information in memory”), and thus does not amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of “user device,” “executing computer logic to,” “wherein the computer logic is configured to,” “executing instructions,” “user interface,” “non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions,” “processors,” “execute computer logic,” “receiving, from a user device via a network, data associated with a complaint,” “stored in an instructions database,” “retrieving, from a database of text elements, a set of text elements associated with the complaint type,” “wherein one or more of the text elements includes metadata comprising display rules associated with a user interface,” “controlling generation and arrangement of a first user interface based on the display rules from the metadata,” “wherein controlling comprises executing instructions that specify at least spatial placement, visibility, and interactive behavior of said first text element and input fields within the first user interface,” “updated user interface,” and “the second text element arranged based on the display rules of the metadata” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 3 – 8, 11 – 16, & 19 – 20 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The additional element of “storing the attachment in an attachment database” in claims 6 & 14 amounts to extra-solution functionality, which has been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), noting: “Electronic recordkeeping,” & “Storing and retrieving information in memory”), and thus do not amount to significantly more under Step 2B. The additional element of “storing the input and complaint in a complaint database” in claims 7 & 15 amounts to extra-solution functionality, which has been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), noting: “Electronic recordkeeping,” & “Storing and retrieving information in memory”), and thus do not amount to significantly more under Step 2B.The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628