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 .
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.
Claim 2-17,19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind.
Regarding claim 2, with the exception of a ‘monitoring agent’, the claims recite mental processes – concepts performed in the mind.
The limitations ‘wherein the interaction of the user includes an interaction with at least one user interface element displayed at the user page, the at least one user interface element being associated with at least one account of the user, the resolution flow being determined according to at least one rule and at least one learned error resolution flow corresponding to at least one causal factor for the error, wherein the at least one causal factor for the error is based on user page data at a time of the error and account data for at least one transaction service account of the user’ are concepts that are able to performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation and/or judgment.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘at a monitoring agent interface with a user page for a transaction service; transmitting instructions, to the user page by a monitoring agent an error resolution element at the user page in response to an error signal, wherein the error resolution element is displayed at the user page in addition to the at least one user interface element; transmitting instructions, to the error resolution element by the monitoring agent, for implementation of a resolution flow through the error resolution element, wherein the resolution flow includes information for resolving the error through the user page; providing, at the error resolution element, a request to implement resolution of the error based on the requested data received and the resolution flow, wherein the request to implement the resolution of the error is provided contextually in the user page’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘receiving an error signal indicating an error related to an interaction of a user with the transaction service; wherein implementing the resolution flow, while maintaining display of both the at least one user interface element and the error resolution element at the user page, includes: providing, at the error resolution element, a request for data from the user needed to resolve the error; receiving the requested data from the user via the user page; and displaying, at the error resolution element, information related to implementation of the resolution flow’ are merely gathering data and displaying informing which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 3, the limitations ‘wherein the at least one rule and the at least one learned error resolution flow are accessed from a database of rules for errors and learned error resolution flows’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations ‘wherein the information for resolving the error includes information is determined based on the at least one causal factor’ are mental processes concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations ‘wherein the user page data at the time of the error is accessed by the monitoring agent’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations ‘wherein the information related to implementation of the resolution flow displayed at the error resolution element includes notifications related to steps in the resolution flow’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 7, the limitations ‘wherein the information related to implementation of the resolution flow displayed at the error resolution element includes tools for requesting information or data from the user’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations ‘wherein the error resolution element is added contextually within the user page to be displayed simultaneously with the at least one user interface element’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations ‘wherein the information for resolving the error is based on receiving the data from the user needed to resolve the error’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations ‘further comprising: accessing external data needed to resolve the error from at least one external domain while maintaining engagement between the user and the user page; and receiving, at the monitoring agent, the external data needed to resolve the error from the at least one external domain along with the resolution flow’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations ‘wherein the data for the user page at the time of the error includes one or more images of the user page at the time of the error’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations ‘wherein the at least one causal factor is determined, at least in part, by assessing the error signal and the images of the user page according to an image-based machine learning algorithm’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 13, with the exception of a ‘A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by a computing device to perform operations; monitoring agent’, the claims recite mental processes – concepts performed in the mind.
The limitations ‘wherein the interaction of the user includes an interaction related to at least one account of the user, the interaction involving one or more user interface elements displayed at the user page, wherein at least one user interface element implements a task corresponding to the at least one account of the user; the resolution flow includes information for resolving the error, the resolution flow being determined according to at least one rule and at least one learned error resolution flow corresponding to at least one causal factor for the error, wherein the at least one causal factor for the error is based on user page data at a time of the error and account data for the at least one account of the user’ are concepts that are able to performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation and/or judgment.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by a computing device to perform operations; at a monitoring agent interface with a user page for a transaction service; transmitting instructions, to the user page by the monitoring agent, an error resolution element at the user page in response to the error signal, wherein the error resolution element is displayed at the user page in addition to the one or more user interface elements; transmitting instructions, to the error resolution element by the monitoring agent and without redirecting the user to an additional user page, for implementation of a resolution flow through the error resolution element, wherein the resolution flow includes information for resolving the error through the user page’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘receiving an error signal indicating an error related to an interaction of a user with the transaction service; wherein the resolution flow includes: providing, at the error resolution element, a first task element that includes a request for data from the user that is needed to resolve the error; receiving, at the first task element, the requested data from the user via the user page; receiving, at the second task element, the request to implement resolution of the error; providing, at the error resolution element, a second task element that includes a request to implement resolution of the error based on the requested data received and the resolution flow; and displaying, at the error resolution element, information related to implementation of the resolution flow; ’ are merely gathering data and displaying informing which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 14, the limitations ‘wherein the monitoring agent detects the error based on detecting an error signal’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 15, the limitations ‘implementing, by the monitoring agent, the resolution flow to resolve the error in response to receiving the requested data from the user via the user page and the request to implement resolution of the error’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 16, the limitations ‘wherein the resolution flow includes accessing external data needed to resolve the error from at least one external domain’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 17, the limitations ‘wherein the request to implement resolution of the error is provided contextually in the user page to maintain engagement between the user and the user page through the error resolution element while resolving the error’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 19, with the exception of a ‘monitoring agent’, the claims recite mental processes – concepts performed in the mind.
The limitations ‘wherein the interaction of the user includes an interaction with at least one user interface element displayed at the user page, the at least one user interface element being associated with at least one account of the user; the resolution flow includes information for resolving the error, the resolution flow being determined according to at least one rule and at least one learned error resolution flow corresponding to at least one causal factor for the error, wherein the at least one causal factor for the error is based on user page data at a time of the error and account data for the at least one account of the user’ are concepts that are able to performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation and/or judgment.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘at a monitoring agent interfacing with a user page for a transaction service; transmitting instructions, to the user page by the monitoring agent, for implementation of an error resolution element at the user page in response to the error signal, wherein the error resolution element is displayed at the user page in addition to the at least one user interface element; providing, at the error resolution element, a request for data from the user that is needed to resolve the error; transmitting instructions, to the error resolution element by the monitoring agent while maintaining display of both the at least one user interface element and the error resolution element at the user page, wherein the resolution flow includes information for resolving the error through the user page a resolution flow through the error resolution element, wherein the resolution flow includes information for resolving the error; providing, at the error resolution element, a request to implement resolution of the error in response to receiving the requested data’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘receiving an error signal indicating an error related to an interaction of a user with the transaction service; wherein implementing the resolution flow includes, at least in part: displaying, at the error resolution element, information related to implementation of the resolution flow while the resolution flow proceeds to maintain engagement between the user and the error resolution element; receiving the requested data from the user via the user page; receiving, at the error resolution element, the request to implement resolution of the error; implementing an attempt for resolution of the error according to the resolution flow based on receiving the request to implement the resolution of the error and the requested data’ are merely gathering data and displaying informing which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 20, the limitations ‘wherein displaying information related to implementation of the resolution flow includes displaying one or more task elements requesting input from the user’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 21, the limitations ‘wherein the monitoring agent implements one or more scripts or widgets to display the information related to implementation of the resolution flow’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 22, the limitations ‘wherein displaying the information related to implementation of the resolution flow includes displaying at least one task element in the error resolution element, and wherein the at least one task element includes either the request for data from the user or the request to implement resolution of the error’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
There is no prior art rejection for claims 2-17,19-22 because of the newly added limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered. The 101 rejection still stands. Concerning Applicant’s arguments of the 101 rejection, claims are not viewed to be directed to improvements in computer-related technology. The claims are directed to determining an error in an transaction service, using a user page to resolve the error and displaying all this information using generic computer components. The newly added limitations are further use of generic computer components and does not overcome the 101 rejection. This is not considered to amount to significantly more.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Yolanda L Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-3653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30 am - 4 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached on 571-272-3655. 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.
/Yolanda L Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113