DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in reply to Applicants response after non-final rejection received on December 3, 2023. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending in the instant application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicants filing of IDS references on August 26, 2025, August 27, 2025, and November 9, 2025. The references have been considered at this time. A copy of the annotated IDS sheet is included in this correspondence.
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 the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system or “apparatus”, method or “process”, or product or “article of manufacture” and is a method of producing vacuolations for reaching goal which is a process (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 8 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent apparatus Claim 1 and program product Claim 15. Claim 8 recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
Storing, by a software application, credentials for logging a source device into a an external service with a data store;
displaying at least one query on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a page of the software application;
receiving at least one response to the at least one query from the GUI;
establishing a secure channel between the software application and the external service and log into the external service with credential;
ingesting profile data associated with the source device from the external service via the secure channel;
executing a multi-modal artificial intelligence (AI) model on the at least one response and the ingested profile data to determine an objective associated with the source device and a timeline for achieving the objective, and to generate a custom image of the objective; and
rendering the custom image and the timeline via the GUI of the page of the software application on the source device.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Storing credentials, displaying a query, ingesting profile data, determining an objective from a response and profile data and a timeline for the objective and rendering the image and timeline on a GUI recites managing personal behavior or relationships. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The memory and processor coupled to the memory in Claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions sored thereon in Claim 15 appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 15 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mental Processes”. Storing credentials, responding to a query, ingesting profile data, determining an objective from the response and profile data, a timeline for achieving the objective and rendering the image and timeline recites a concept performed in the human mind. But for the “software application”, “data store”, “graphical user interface”, and Artificial Intelligence model” language, the claims encompasses storing credentials, receiving a response to query, identify an objective, plan a timeline, generate a custom image and display it using his/her mind and/or pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of an generic computer hardware [data store, processor, and GUI] and an AI model does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The memory and processor coupled to the memory in Claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions sored thereon in Claim 15 appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 15 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite a memory, a processor, a software application and a GUI (Claim 1) a data store, a software application, a GUI and a artificial intelligence model (claim 8) and/or a computer-readable medium storing instructions (claim 15). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 8, 15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware 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. See Applicant’s specification para. [0154] about implantation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices [Examples of well-known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for use with computer system/server 1302 include, but are not limited to, personal computer systems, server computer systems, thin clients, thick clients, hand-held or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputer systems, mainframe computer systems, and distributed cloud computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like. ] and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims include steps or processes which are similar to that disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(d), (f), (g), and/or (h) which include activities and functions the courts have determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner, or as insignificant extra solution activity, or as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
The Applicants remarks begin on page 8 of the response on November 12, 2025, with a summary of the claims are related paragraphs of the specification which support the amendments.
The arguments begin with the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101, with a traversal of the rejection and a copy of at least amended claim 1. The Applicant disagrees with the Office position that the claims are an abstract idea. The Applicant cites the 2019 SME guidance and Step 2A, Prong 1 in that under the guidance and when viewed as a while, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract concept in the enumerated groupings (remarks page 9). Specifically, the argument cites a process of ingesting profile data from an external source, via a secure channel and combining the data with user inputs to generate a graphical image and timeline on a GUI. The argument is the claims go beyond simple data analysis where the arguments claim a specific improvement to a specific technical problem by enabling a system to dynamically and securely obtain external data, fuse it with user input, and automatically generate a custom representation and a temporal projection. Applicant argues this is not a mental step, nor can it be accomplished using generic computer functions. Applicant states that the recited combination of secure data ingestion, AI driven processing, and GUI rendering integrates multiple components that is rooted in computer technologic, not economic practices.
The Examiner does not agree. Specifically, a person collecting profile data, combining with other inputs, and generating a graphical output with a timeline are all concepts which can be performed of the mind. Additionally, the concept is also organizing human activity related to managing personal behavior or relationships. The concepts of performing the connection between a device and an external service is not more than transmitting data over a network. This is an activity the courts have established as a computer function which is well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant-extra solution activity MPEP 2106.05(d)II. The Office made clear that steps are capable of mental processes but for the limitation of the functions being performed by a computer.
Additionally, the Examiner does not find this to be a solution to a technical problem. Rather, this is clearly technology applied to a business problem where use data is analyzed to determine and objective and a timeline for achieving the objective. The idea that the problem is applied to a software application on a source device and a connection between the source device and a data store is just the application of a technological field. This is not indicative of a solution to a technological problem, nor is it integrating the claimed invention into a practical application.
The Applicant shifts the argument to Step 2A, Prong 2 (remarks page 10) where the Applicant indicates the claims are not directed to a judicial exception, rather the exception has been integrated into a practical application. Specifically the Applicant cites establishing a secure channel, ingesting profile data, and executing an AI model to generate two distinct outputs. Applicant recites that the operations cannot be performed in the mind and are not generic computer functions rather require specialized algorithms, secure communications, and graphical rendering within a software application. Applicant argues that the claims are rooted in computer technology and provide technical improvement.
Additionally, the argument is that ingestion of profile data improves reliability and integrity of computer operations and is a practical application. Also the use of an AI model enables new ways of generating predictive and visual information. Applicants argue this constitutes significantly more as it improves the computer functions in information communication.
The Examiner does not agree with the arguments. Secure channels still boils down to transmitting data across a network. There is a significant established history of secure communications and the support lists known secure channels such as two-factor authentication, multi-factor authentication, biometric authentication, password, PIN, and the like. All of these are well-understood and well-known forms of secure connection. Additionally, the profile ingestion is simply data collection with respect to a user. It’s no different than the collecting data step of Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom S.A. Use of an AI model to take the data and determine an objective and a timeline is also not indicative of a practical application. In this case it’s merely the use of a computer as a tool to preform the judicial exception. The model is a pretrained model which simply takes collected data inputs to provide a objective with a respective timeline for completion. The model can be judgement, evaluation, and opinion when considered of the mind. The limitation for arguing it cannot be performed is the application of a computer and software. This is where the computer is simply applied as a tool.
It is noted that the claim limitations are similar to most available banking applications. Wells Fargo, Citizens, Bank of America, all have applications between source device and a banking service. These connections are secure with password and multi-factor authentication schemes. Additionally the source device (for example, iPhone or Android) has the capability to save login credentials for a bank member which are then also protected on the device, potentially through biometric protection, The mere use of a generic AI model for ingesting customer data to produce an objective output is not indicative of practical application or significantly more.
Furthermore, the Examiner does not find where ingestion of profile data results in improved reliability and integrity. Also, use of a model to make predictions is certainly not a new concept and outputting a visualization does not integrate the exception into a practical application. At a basic level outputting text is a visualization and a the concept of generating a custom image is not a unique concept as the model as to be trained to know what an image of a particular word means.
The arguments move to the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103. The Applicants arguments are based on the amendments to the claims not being covered by the cited prior art references, specifically the establishment of a secure connection, and a multi-modal AI by either reference Sandis or Davisdon.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 has been withdrawn at this time. The Examiner reserves the right to use any and all of the cited references in the future if necessary.
In summary, the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 has been removed at this time. The rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101 remains. The claims are not in condition for allowance.
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 DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 December 15, 2025
Prosecution Insights