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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they recite non-patentable subject matter under MPEP § 2106, e.g., the 2019 PEG, October update. More particularly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea, etc.) without practical application or significantly more.
More particularly, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Broad categories of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas. See, generally, MPEP § 2106; Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. __ (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294, 1297-98 (2012)); Federal Register notice titled 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (79 FR 74618), which is found at: http:// www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf; 2015 Update to the Interim Guidance; the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019; and associated Office memoranda.
Under MPEP § 2106, Step 1, the claimed invention, taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a process (i.e., a method), machine (e.g., apparatus, system, etc.), article of manufacture (e.g., a non-transitory computer readable medium) or composition of matter, and as such, is patent eligible.
Under MPEP § 2106, Step 2a-prong 1, Claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception(s), including a method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principle). More particularly, the entirety of the method steps is directed towards facilitating human (telephonic, in person, visual) interaction through organizing, compiling, and presenting relevant information via a user interface at each step of a multi-step workflow, and pulling such information via an API(s) or website. Moreover, the invention is directed to providing a script to facilitate telephonic services. These are methods of organizing human activity, and long-standing commercial practices previously performed by humans (e.g., businesses, employees, insurance companies, telemarketers, etc.) manually and via generic computing. That is to say, it has long been a practice to prepare for a human-to-human interaction, by compiling, organizing and referring to relevant information from disparate sources necessary to complete a task. A rental car agent, for example, may manually consult/enter data into a user screen, an available cars screen, an insurance coverage screen, and a payment/reservation screen, when talking to someone on the phone. As such, the inventions include an abstract idea under § 2106, and Alice Corporation.
Under step 2a-prong 2, the claims fail to recite a practical application of the exception, because the extraneous limitations (e.g., the structure—computing system, display, processor, memory, user interface, persistent interface element, flow interface element, receiving data from an API, etc.) merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g), generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or generally instruct an artisan to apply it (the method) across generic computing technology. A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). That is to say, the claims are not directed to a new software or computer, but rather employs pre-existing software to do what’s been previously done, albeit less efficiently or slower. “[I]t is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). More particularly, the claims fail to recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology (under MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the use of a particular machine (under § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article (§ 2106.05(c)), or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (§ 2106.05(e)).
Under part 2b, the additional elements offered by the dependent claims either further delineate the abstract idea, add further abstract idea(s), adds insignificant extra-solution activity, or further instruct the artisan to apply it (the abstract idea(s)) across generic computing technology. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because no one claim effects an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Under Alice, merely applying or executing the abstract idea on one or more generic computer system (e.g., a computer system comprising a generic database; a generic element (NIC) for providing website access, etc.; a generic element for receiving user input; and a generic display on the computer, in any of their forms) to carry out the abstract idea more efficiently fails to cure patent ineligibility. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (claims reciting a “scanner” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea).
Courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, MPEP 2106.05(d), wherein the italicized tasks are particularly germane to the instant invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 (and the like) recites the limitation "the input" in the limitation, “determining, . . . and based at least in part on the input . . .” added by the instant amendment; but it is not clear if “the input” is referring to the first input or the second input. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The dependent claims fail to cure this deficiency. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application presenting obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 12, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,936,378 to Khan, in view of US 2017/0220998 to Horn et al.
With respect to Claims 1, 13, and 18, Khan teaches a computer-executable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions (col 10, ln 31-50); a computing system, comprising: a display; a processor operably connected to the display; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, the memory storing a set of instructions (FIGS. 1; col 7, ln 50-65) and a method (FIG. 7) providing, by a client computing system (FIGS. 1-8), a frontend application (see “backend application” discussed throughout) including a first rendering of a user interface (UI) (FIG. 4A-6B; col 17, ln 15-50), the first rendering of the UI comprising: a persistent interface element (“Customer,” “Action,” “Type of Customer Information” are persistent elements), and a flow interface element, rendered in a first portion of the UI, including a first plurality of sub-elements (each contain a drop down menu of a plurality of sub-elements), the frontend application selectively displaying a first flow control element in the first rendering based on a current step of a service flow (FIG. 4A-6B; col 17, ln 15-50); receiving, by the client computing system, information indicative of an interaction with the first flow control element by the first user, wherein the information is based on an input received from a user of a user device (col 14, ln 55-col 15, ln 5; FIG. 4A-6B; col 17, ln 15-50); and providing, by the client computing system, a second rendering of the UI (FIG. 5A), the second rendering comprising: the persistent interface element, the flow interface element including a second plurality of sub-elements, and a second flow control element associated with a next step of the service flow (FIG. 5A, drop down menu teaches a flow control element). The system in Khan is configured to perform the recited steps of the invention, however, it does not use the exact same language, particularly fails to teach an insurance/rental context. Please note that the applied reference(s) need not use the same terminology, or disclose the limitation verbatim. Differences between Khan and the instant invention have been deemed obvious, as held in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). For example, whereas Khan teaches a persistent interface element, it would have been obvious to try a persistent title of a drop down menu of “Actions” amongst a finite set of title choices therein. (compare FIGS 4A, 5A, 6A) As such, it would have been obvious to modify Khan to teach the instant invention.
Khan fails to expressly teach, but Horn further teaches interface sub-elements presenting first data received from a first API, and a first flow control element selectable by a first user of the UI (FIG. 3, 310; [0053];[0057];[0066]). Horn further teaches transmitting, by the client computing system and as input to a second API different from the first API, the information; receiving, by the client computing system and from the second API, second data in response to the information; updating, by the client computing system and in response to receiving the second data,the flow interface element by replacing the first plurality of sub-elements with a second plurality of sub-elements presenting the second data, different from the first flow. (FIG. 3, 310; [0053];[0057];[0066]) Horn discusses the disadvantages of conventional insurance service provision, including unable to quickly contact, interact with, and manage insured interactions with service providers. [0003] As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Khan to include the first API and flow control element selectable by a first user, and the second flow from a second API as recited by the amended claims, in order to improve interaction between insureds and service providers.
Khan fails to expressly teach, but Bauer teaches updating the flow interface element by replacing the first plurality of sub-elements . . . determining . . . based in part on the input a next step of the service flow,” as added by the instant amendment. See Bauer, col 5, ln 44-60; FIG. 6). Bauer discusses a desire to “improve efficiency and reduce costs” in presenting multi-step policy services to an insurer. Col 1, ln 40-50. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Khan to include these limitations as taught by Bauer, in order to further reduce costs and increase efficiency.
Moreover, in so far as Claim 1 recites presentation of a new or second data/sub-elements from a second API, it is noted that mere redundancy, duplicity, or repetition of existing structure or steps has been deemed obvious under § 103 analysis. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See also, MPEP § 2144.05 which states: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
With respect to Claim 12, Khan teaches wherein the information is a first information and the interaction is a first interaction, the method further comprising: receiving, by the client computing system, second information indicative of a second interaction with the second flow control element; clearing, by the client computing system, the second plurality of sub-elements from the flow interface element in response to the second information; and providing, by the client computing system, a third rendering of the UI comprising the persistent interface element and the flow interface element including a third plurality of sub- elements, the third plurality of sub-elements being associated with a further step of the service flow. (compare FIGS. 4A, 5A, and 6A). Moreover, in so far as Claim 12 recites repetitive flow interactions, rendering repetative sub-elements after clearing the prior sub-elements, it is noted that mere redundancy, duplicity, or repetition of existing structure or steps has been deemed obvious under § 103 analysis. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See also, MPEP § 2144.05 which states: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
Claims 2, 4-8, 10, 11, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Khan, in view of Horn, in view of Bauer, and further in view of the APA.
With respect to Claim 2, Khan teaches wherein the first flow control element is rendered proximate to first indicia of claimants (FIG. 4A), but fails to teach the claimants being eligible for vehicle rental coverage associated with an automobile insurance policy. The admitted prior art (APA) discusses insurance processing wherein the insured and other claimants (e.g., passengers in the insured vehicle, etc.) are eligible for vehicle rental coverage associated with an automobile policy. See, Specification at ¶¶ [0003-05]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Khan to specify the individuals named in the dropped down menu are claimants eligible for insurance rental coverage under an automobile policy.
Khan fails to expressly teach, but Horn teaches the first user is a claim associated of an insurance company, the second user is associated with an insurance claim, and . . . coverate under an insurance policy associated with the insurance claim. See discussion of “Insurance” claim throughout Horn’s disclosure. Under the same rationale as Claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Khan to include this limitation taught by Horn.
With respect to Claim 4, Khan teaches an operatively configured client computing system (FIGS. 1-8). Khan fails to expressly teach, but the APA teaches the manual/telephonic querying of a repair management service, as the first API, using a policy number or a claim number; receiving from the repair management service API, a repair assignment data record including an address of a repair facility; and providing the address of the repair facility among the second plurality of sub-elements in the flow interface element, wherein a second flow control element is rendered proximate to a rendering of the address (design choice), the rendering of the address being selectable to provide the address as input to the next step. See Background. Under the same rationale as Claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Khan to include this limitation taught by the APA. Moreover, the particular indicia/limitation used in the recited context is printed matter, not subject to patentable weight. See, In re Ngai, 2004 WL 1068957 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004)(Claim at issue was a kit requiring instructions and a buffer agent. The federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated under 102 by a prior art reference that taught a kit that included instructions and a buffer agent, even though the content of the instructions differed); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(“Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability…[T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.”).
With respect to Claims 5, and 15, Khan teaches an operatively configured client computing system (FIGS. 1-8). Horn teaches rental agency lookup service API. ([0002];[0051];[0055]). Under the same rationale as Claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Khan to include this limitation taught by Horn.
Khan fails to expressly teach, but the APA teaches the manual/telephonic querying by the client computing device, as the second API, use of a rental agency lookup service API using the address as a proximity anchor; receiving from the rental agency lookup service, a plurality of proximity search result data records, each record of the plurality of proximity search result data records containing one or more fields describing a rental agency office located within a predetermined distance from the proximity anchor; and providing the plurality of proximity search result data records among the second plurality of sub-elements in the flow interface element, wherein the second flow control element comprises an office selection link for each of the plurality of proximity search result data records. See Background. Under the same rationale as Claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Khan to include this limitation taught by the APA. Moreover, the particular indicia/limitation used in the recited context is printed matter, not subject to patentable weight. See, In re Ngai, 2004 WL 1068957 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004) (Claim at issue was a kit requiring instructions and a buffer agent. The federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated under 102 by a prior art reference that taught a kit that included instructions and a buffer agent, even though the content of the instructions differed); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(“Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability… [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.”).
With respect to Claim 6, Khan teaches an operatively configured client computing system (FIGS. 1-8). Khan fails to expressly teach, but the APA teaches manually obtaining from a policy participant data record, a residence address associated with the user, wherein the second flow control element is rendered proximate to a rendering of the residence address. See Background. Under the same rationale as Claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Khan to include this limitation taught by the APA. Moreover, the particular indicia/limitation used in the recited context is printed matter, not subject to patentable weight. See, In re Ngai, 2004 WL 1068957 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004)(Claim at issue was a kit requiring instructions and a buffer agent. The federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated under 102 by a prior art reference that taught a kit that included instructions and a buffer agent, even though the content of the instructions differed); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(“Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability… [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.”).
With respect to Claim 7, Khan teaches an operatively configured client computing system (FIGS. 1-8). Khan fails to expressly teach, but the APA teaches manually querying a rental agency lookup service API using the residence address as a proximity anchor; receiving based on the querying, and from the rental agency lookup service API, a plurality of proximity search result data records, each record of the plurality of proximity search result data records containing one or more fields describing a rental agency office which is located within a predetermined distance from the proximity anchor; and providing the plurality of proximity search result data records among the second plurality of sub-elements in the flow interface element, wherein the second flow control element comprises an office selection link for each of the plurality of proximity search result data records. See Background. Under the same rationale as Claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Khan to include this limitation taught by the APA. Moreover, the particular indicia/limitation used in the recited context is printed matter, not subject to patentable weight. See, In re Ngai, 2004 WL 1068957 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004)(Claim at issue was a kit requiring instructions and a buffer agent. The federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated under 102 by a prior art reference that taught a kit that included instructions and a buffer agent, even though the content of the instructions differed); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(“Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability…[T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.”).
With respect to Claim 8, Khan teaches wherein the second plurality of sub-elements includes content-presentation sub-elements displaying textual content, and the textual content is based at least in part on records and the current step (FIG 4A, see Claim 1 above). Khan fails but the APA teaches the content being based at least part on insurance policy records. See Background. Under the same rationale as Claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Khan to include this limitation taught by the APA. Moreover, the particular indicia/limitation used in the recited context is printed matter, not subject to patentable weight. See, In re Ngai, 2004 WL 1068957 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004)(Claim at issue was a kit requiring instructions and a buffer agent. The federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated under 102 by a prior art reference that taught a kit that included instructions and a buffer agent, even though the content of the instructions differed); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(“Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability…[T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.”).
With respect to Claims 10, and 16, Khan fails to expressly teach, but the APA teaches wherein the next step is based on a claimant type of the second user, the claimant type being at least one of: a policy participant or an external claimant. See Background. Under the same rationale as Claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Khan to include this limitation taught by the APA. Moreover, the particular indicia/limitation used in the recited context is printed matter, not subject to patentable weight. See, In re Ngai, 2004 WL 1068957 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004)(Claim at issue was a kit requiring instructions and a buffer agent. The federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated under 102 by a prior art reference that taught a kit that included instructions and a buffer agent, even though the content of the instructions differed); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(“Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability…[T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.”).
With respect to Claims 11, and 17, Khan teaches an operatively configured client computing system (FIGS. 1-8). Khan fails to expressly teach, but the APA teaches querying a rental agency lookup service API with the claimant type and an associated address; receiving from the rental agency lookup service API, a plurality of rental vehicle options based on the claimant type; and providing a third plurality of sub-elements in the flow interface element, the third plurality of sub-elements including a listing of the plurality of rental vehicle options. See Background. Under the same rationale as Claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Khan to include this limitation taught by the APA. Moreover, the particular indicia/limitation used in the recited context is printed matter, not subject to patentable weight. See, In re Ngai, 2004 WL 1068957 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004)(Claim at issue was a kit requiring instructions and a buffer agent. The federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated under 102 by a prior art reference that taught a kit that included instructions and a buffer agent, even though the content of the instructions differed); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(“Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability… [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.”).
The combination of Khan, Horn, and the APA teaches providing, by the client computing system, a third rendering of the UI, the third rendering comprising: the persistent interface element, the flow interface element including the third plurality of sub-elements, and a third flow control element, different from the second flow control element, the third plurality of sub-elements being associated with a further step of the service flow (See Claim 1, as per the second sub-elements and control element).
With respect to Claim 20, Khan fails to expressly teach, but the APA teaches wherein generating the telephonic script comprises: receiving an identification of a damaged vehicle of the user associated with an insurance claim; determining, based on the identification, a status of the damaged vehicle, wherein the status includes either a first indication that the damaged vehicle is drivable, or a second indication that the damaged vehicle is undrivable; generating, based on the status, either a first message corresponding to the first indication, or a second message, different from the first message, corresponding to the second indication; and displaying, via the UI, the first message or the second message as the telephonic script. See Background. Under the same rationale as Claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Khan to include this limitation/context, as taught by the APA. Moreover, the particular indicia/limitation used in the recited context is printed matter, not subject to patentable weight. See, In re Ngai, 2004 WL 1068957 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004)(Claim at issue was a kit requiring instructions and a buffer agent. The federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated under 102 by a prior art reference that taught a kit that included instructions and a buffer agent, even though the content of the instructions differed); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(“Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability… [T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.”).
Claim 9 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Khan, in view of the Horn, Bauer, the APA, and further in view of US 2014/0244429 to Clayton et al.
With respect to Claim 9, the combination of Khan and the APA fails to teach wherein the textual content is generated by an artificial intelligence (AJ) chat tool. Clayton, however, teaches the use of artificial intelligence in building “multi-step processes.” [0303];[0467] Clayton discusses the need for a new paradigm in apps that enable it to scale up. [0014] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Khan to include artificial intelligence as taught by Clayton, in order to increase the systems ability to scale up.
Claims 3, 14, and 19 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Khan, Horn, and further in view of US 2002/0035488 to Aquila et al.
With respect to Claims 3, and 14, Khan teaches a completion marker (col 16, ln 9-23), comprising determining using an AI chat tool. (col 1, ln 45-50, “intelligence”). Khan fails to expressly teach, but Aquila teaches generating by the computing device, a telephonic script presenting text of a request to be verbally conveyed by the first user to the second user ([0347]; FIG. 5A; [0033];[0140]). Aquila teaches wherein the text includes a request for response from the second user; determining, by the client computing system and based on the second data, response options associated with the request included in the text ([0347]; FIG. 6). Aquila teaches requests and responses from users the method further comprising: receiving, by the client computing system, an indication of an interaction with the completion marker presenting that the request has been conveyed to the second user ([0347]; FIG. 4-6); and based on receiving the indication, providing, by the client computing system, a response selection control as a component of the second flow control element, the response selection control presenting a listing of response options received from the user corresponding to the next step (FIGS. 4-6). Aquila discusses the need to develop phone tree services that are subject to “potential error and inconsistencies.” [0009] As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Khan to include a telephonic script as taught by Aquila, in order to reduce error and inconsistency. Please note what is said in the strict is indicia not subject to patentable weight, such that a script comprising “a request,” and “response options” fail to overcome obviousness by itself.
With respect to Claim 19, Khan teaches wherein the second plurality of sub-elements includes a script text of a request to be verbally conveyed to the user by a first user of the UI, and the text is generated automatically based at least in part on records and the current step (FIG 4A, see Claim 1 above). Moreover, Aquila teaches a telephonic script. (see [0347]).
Response to remarks
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 2/17/2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive where objections/rejections are maintained. As per § 101, the amendments fail to overcome the rejection. The claims continue to recite inventions including an abstract idea without practical application or significantly more. The extraneous limitations added via the instant amendment are well-known, routine, and conventional (see, prior art references of record, including Horn offering the same solution(s) offered by the present invention). The invention is still drawn to facilitating a mutli-step interview process/telephonic service, wherein data/information is called from disparate sources during the call. This has long been performed manually by humans (agents, salespersons, telemarketers, etc.). The use of a client system, AI, APIs to provide the data, and more are all generic computing technology being used to supplant previous human activity.
The amendments further delineate the abstract idea, such as provisioning a script comprising a request and response options, determining a next step of the service flow, etc. Reciting a second and third instance, wherein a second or third API is called to provide sub-elements and information for presentment on the display is redundant (as discussed under 103).
As per 103, Bauer has been added to further teach the invention, and Aquila has replaced Lawson, as Aquila expressly teaches provisioning a call center “script.” [0347] Horn expressly teaches a system that include one or more sites (120-130) that disseminate information via an API ([0040]); an interface is shown at FIG. 3 that includes sub-elements and information, including a selectable links. Please note that the applied reference(s) need not use the same terminology, or disclose the limitation verbatim, and also that the entirety of a prior art reference is to be applied to the respective claim(s), such that the pinpoint citations above are exemplary and provided for Applicant’s benefit; other locations within the applied reference(s) may further support the rejection. MPEP 2141.02(VI).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. 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.
/WILLIAM J JACOB/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights