DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a non-final. Claims 1-4, 7-15, 18-21, and 23-25 are pending. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/26/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 05/26/2026, amended claims 1 and 6-7; cancelled claims 5-6, 16-17, and 22; and added new claims 23-25.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection to claims 1-4, 6-15, and 17-22, under 35 USC 101 (Alice), will be maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received on date 05/26/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive regarding 101.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant asserts that “the claims integrate any allegedly recited judicial exception into a practical application, and thus the claims are eligible at Step 2A, prong two.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under the second prong of Step 2A, we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55.
Under Prong 2 of Step 2A, as set in the previous actions, the “additional limitations beyond the recited abstract idea” recited in claim 1, and similarly claims 13 and 20, comprise the recitations "identifying, a user behavior data set associated with the user; determining, based on the user behavior data set, a predicted deployment event for the user, wherein (a) the predicted deployment event comprises a deployment likelihood score and a time period of interest, and (b) the deployment likelihood score is indicative of a likelihood that the user is deployed during the time period of interest; in an instance in which the deployment likelihood score is determined to satisfy a deployment likelihood score threshold, generating, a deployment confirmation prompt, wherein (a) the deployment confirmation prompt that cause to display an interactable data element to the user and (b) the interactable data element corresponds to a confirmation of the predicted deployment event; providing, the deployment confirmation prompt to the user, wherein the deployment confirmation prompt; receiving, a deployment confirmation response, wherein the deployment confirmation response is indicative of user confirmation or denial of the predicted deployment event; in an instance in which the user confirms the predicted deployment event, identifying, based on a user profile associated with the user, one or more user accounts associated with the user; determining, by the deployment action circuitry, an eligibility category for each user account of the one or more user accounts associated with the user, wherein the eligibility category is a categorical classification indicative of whether the user account is eligible for relief benefits; selecting, based on a corresponding eligibility category, an eligible user accounts from the user account for the user; and providing, a deployment event notification to a third-party affiliated with the selected eligible user account” as well as “communications hardware,” “deployment analysis circuitry,” and individually and as an ordered combination, these features amount to no more than applying the abstract idea using generic recitations of computer components (i.e., “apply it”) and generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment or field of use, namely a generic computing and website or online environment, which are not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f), (h).
Applicant asserts that “the combinations of features recited in the claims amount to "significantly more" than any allegedly recited judicial exception, and the claims are eligible at Step 2B.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The MPEP discusses that "the second part of the Alice/Mayo test [(Step 2B)] is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept," and "an 'inventive concept' is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself." MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis added). Further, the MPEP goes on to describe "Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)).” MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis added).
The search for an inventive concept under § 101 is distinct from demonstrating novel and non-obviousness. See SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2-3 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018) (citing Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America at 2. In Step 2B, “[w]hat is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.” SAP America at 11. As discussed in SAP America, no matter how much of an advance the claims recite, when “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm,” “[a]n advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.” Id. at 3.
Here, under Step 2B, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of claim 1, and similarly claims 13 and 20, are the recitations of “identifying, a user behavior data set associated with the user; determining, based on the user behavior data set, a predicted deployment event for the user, wherein (a) the predicted deployment event comprises a deployment likelihood score and a time period of interest, and (b) the deployment likelihood score is indicative of a likelihood that the user is deployed during the time period of interest; in an instance in which the deployment likelihood score is determined to satisfy a deployment likelihood score threshold, generating, a deployment confirmation prompt, wherein (a) the deployment confirmation prompt that cause to display an interactable data element to the user and (b) the interactable data element corresponds to a confirmation of the predicted deployment event; providing, the deployment confirmation prompt to the user, wherein the deployment confirmation prompt; receiving, a deployment confirmation response, wherein the deployment confirmation response is indicative of user confirmation or denial of the predicted deployment event; in an instance in which the user confirms the predicted deployment event, identifying, based on a user profile associated with the user, one or more user accounts associated with the user; determining, by the deployment action circuitry, an eligibility category for each user account of the one or more user accounts associated with the user, wherein the eligibility category is a categorical classification indicative of whether the user account is eligible for relief benefits; selecting, based on a corresponding eligibility category, an eligible user accounts from the user account for the user; and providing, a deployment event notification to a third-party affiliated with the selected eligible user account are carried out by at least one computing device,” and these additional elements, individually and in combination, are nothing more than computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Accordingly, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
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 1-4, 7-15, 18-21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-4, 7-15, 18-21, and 23-25 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claims 1, 13, and 20 recite an abstract idea. Claims 1, 13, and 20 include “identifying, a user behavior data set associated with the user; determining, based on the user behavior data set, a predicted deployment event for the user, wherein (a) the predicted deployment event comprises a deployment likelihood score and a time period of interest, and (b) the deployment likelihood score is indicative of a likelihood that the user is deployed during the time period of interest; in an instance in which the deployment likelihood score is determined to satisfy a deployment likelihood score threshold, generating, a deployment confirmation prompt, wherein (a) the deployment confirmation prompt that cause to display an interactable data element to the user and (b) the interactable data element corresponds to a confirmation of the predicted deployment event; providing, the deployment confirmation prompt to the user, wherein the deployment confirmation prompt; receiving, a deployment confirmation response, wherein the deployment confirmation response is indicative of user confirmation or denial of the predicted deployment event; in an instance in which the user confirms the predicted deployment event, identifying, based on a user profile associated with the user, one or more user accounts associated with the user; determining, by the deployment action circuitry, an eligibility category for each user account of the one or more user accounts associated with the user, wherein the eligibility category is a categorical classification indicative of whether the user account is eligible for relief benefits; selecting, based on a corresponding eligibility category, an eligible user accounts from the user account for the user; and providing, a deployment event notification to a third-party affiliated with the selected eligible user account”.
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the elements above recite mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and certain methods of organizing human activity-managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) because the elements describe a process for identifying a deployment event. As a result, claims 1, 13, and 20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2-4, 7-12, 14-15, 18-19, 21, and 23-25 further describe the process for identifying a deployment event. As a result, claims 2-4, 7-12, 14-15, 18-19, 21, and 23-25 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 13, and 20.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claims 1, 13, and 20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 13, and 20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1, 13, and 20 include activity monitoring circuitry, deployment analysis circuitry, communications hardware, deployment action circuitry, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 1, 13, and 20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-4, 7-12, 14-15, 18-19, 21, and 23-25 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 2-4, 7-12, 14-15, 18-19, 21, and 23-25 include activity monitoring circuitry, deployment analysis circuitry, communications hardware, deployment action circuitry, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 2-4, 7-12, 14-15, 18-19, 21, and 23-25 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claims 1, 13, and 20 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claims 1, 13, and 20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1, 13, and 20 include activity monitoring circuitry, deployment analysis circuitry, communications hardware, deployment action circuitry, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, independent claims 1, 13, and 20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-4, 7-12, 14-15, 18-19, 21, and 23-25 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 2-4, 7-12, 14-15, 18-19, 21, and 23-25 include activity monitoring circuitry, deployment analysis circuitry, communications hardware, deployment action circuitry, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 2-4, 7-12, 14-15, 18-19, 21, and 23-25 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 7-15, 18-21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAFIZ A KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8534. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:00 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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/HAFIZ A KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 07/01/2026
Prosecution Insights