DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 12 and 86 remain pending.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
3. 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, 4, 8-10, 12 and 86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites a method comprising:
receiving input from a user;
upon receiving said input from said user, prompting said user to select said user or a subject different than said user as being in need of assistance for a mental crisis;
receiving input identifying said user or said subject as needing assistance for said mental crisis;
providing a list of emergency services for providing assistance based on information about the user based on a location associated with the user; and
prompting the user to contact emergency services or view information about alternative support options.
The limitations of receiving input from a user, prompting the user to select a user or subject as being in need of assistance, receiving this identifying input, providing a list emergency services, and prompting the user to contact emergency services or view information, as in claim 1, as drafted, constitute processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component, akin to the abstract idea of customizing web page content based on information about a user such as location data in Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Bank, ‘382 patent. That is, other than reciting a computer-implemented medium with instructions for performing the steps, providing pages in a GUI on which the user provides the inputs and views information, and storing information in a generic database, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer-implemented medium”, “GUI” and “database” language, “receiving inputs” in the context of these claims encompasses a person manually receiving the inputs, for example orally or using a pen and paper. Similarly, the limitations of “prompting” and “directing”, as drafted, encompasses a person manually prompting the user and directing the user to the list of services, for example orally or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of wherein the methods are computer-implemented and provide a GUI with pages that receive inputs from a user and output information to the user, and a database to store information. The GUI and database in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic GUI performing generic computer functions of receiving inputs and outputting prompts and other information, and a generic database storing information) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic GUI and database to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3, 4, 8-10, 12 and 86 recite the same abstract idea as in their respective parent claims, and only recite additional abstract limitations (e.g. providing further information and prompts, receiving user selections, placing a call/message) being performed by the generic GUI. Therefore, these claims do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 20 February 2026 with respect to the section 101 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that amended claim 1 could not be performed by a person. This is not persuasive. A person could observe information regarding a location of a user or of a user’s device, and provide information to the user accordingly. The use of a GUI to provide the information is an additional limitation that amounts to no more than the use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Applicant is directed to Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Bank, ‘382 patent, where the court found that a system for providing web pages tailored to an individual user was drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 of the instant application similarly is drawn to providing pages on a GUI based on information about a user.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the section 112(d) and 102 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715