DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive.
The 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn based on the applicant’s arguments.
The 35 USC 101 rejection remain rejected as the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative argues the Office action merely lists functions that involve an abstract idea and does not identify any limitations in the claims that recite an abstract idea, much less identify specific limitations in the claims that recite an abstract idea.
Applicant’s representative generally argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
In response, it has been clearly enumerated that claims directed to an abstract idea are patent-ineligible. Abstract ideas are characterized as concepts identified by the courts which include (1) mathematical concepts, (2) mental processes and (3) certain methods of organizing human activity.
Among those concepts performed as being identified in the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” are “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as performing mental processes and a commercial or legal interactions ( including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligation, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors or business relations. because it amounts to the functions of:
"determine a set of operations based on the resource transfer data, the at least one trigger condition, and customer information, to obtain recommendations output in connection with one or more of the actions of the determined set, to obtain input of responses to the recommendations data; and submit requests, to one or more third-party service providers in order to perform the one or more actions.
Each of these independent claims uses generic computer technology (such as a generic processor or computing device) for determining, detecting data and generating prompts) as such do not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F .3 d 1299, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation").
As such, claims 1 and 11 recite a determining, detecting, generating, obtaining and submitting functions as these functions are not a technological implementation or improvement of a technological field.
Applicant is to be reminded that a system, apparatus, machine or method for performing business, however, novel, useful, or commercially successful, is not patentable apart from the means for making the system practically useful or carrying it out. The applicant is making use of generic devices to display an offer for insurance for one or more products after certain acquired activity from a sensor are acquired. The claims are void of anything significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the additional elements (such as a generic computing device such as a processor) do not improve (1) the processor or computing device, or (2) another technology or technical field. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Rather, the above-noted additional elements merely (1) apply the abstract idea on a computer; (2) include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (computing device or system) ; or (3) use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the claims.
None of the steps, functions and/or elements recited in the claims provide, and nowhere in the applicant’s shows any description or explanation as to how the claimed computing device or system and user interface are intended to provide: (1) a “solution . . . necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” as explained by the Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014); (2) “a specific improvement to the way computers operate,” as explained in Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336; or (3) an “unconventional technological solution ... to a technological problem” that “improve[s] the performance of the system itself,” as explained in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1299-1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant’s representative then argues that claims as amended now apply the judicial exception and thus integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In response, the claims as now amended still fail to recite technological implementation details of how the claimed functions are being realized. Claims of this nature are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101." Beteiro, LLC V. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The specification does not even provide details of a specific architecture or processor or means or structures or specific computer executed modules for performing the claimed functions. Taken claim 1 as an example, Claim 1 now recites:
(Currently Amended) A computing system, comprising: a processor;
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to:
determine at least one trigger condition relating to allocation of computing resources associated with a resource account;
detect the at least one trigger condition based on real-time analysis of resource transfers of computing resources in connection with the resource account;
determine a set of computing operations actions based on the resource transfer data, the at least one trigger condition, and customer information;
generate text prompts for a large language model (LLM)to obtain recommendations output in connection with one or more of the computing operations actions of the determined set;
obtain, via a chat function of a virtual assistant module executing on a client computing device, input of responses to the recommendations data; and
submit requests, via API calls, to one or more third-party service providers in order to perform the one or more computing operations actions, the API calls being generated based on the inputted responses and formatted to comply with requirements for querying APIs associated with the third-party service providers.
The claims "do[es] not improve the functioning of the processor or computing system or computing device makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem." Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. V. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019). "Nothing in the claim[s], understood in light of the specification, calls for anything but preexisting computers and displays, programmed using techniques known to skilled artisans, to present the new arrangement of information." Brumfield V. IBG LLC, 97 F Ath 854, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The claims also do not show a technical improvement in the architecture of a processor with a memory using a computing logic of the computing system or computing device. The recited functions involve generic or conventional functions and setup of a basic computer system.
The mere recitation of a generic processor with a memory or computing device performing their expected functions cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention as stated in Alice Corp., 134S.Ct. at 2358; DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cri. 2014) ("And after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible. (citation omitted)). Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to 'implement' an abstract idea 'on a computer', that addition cannot impart patent eligibility." Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (internal citation omitted). The claimed processor with a memory and a computing device are merely a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Each of the independent claims uses generic computer technology (such as a generic processor and a computing device) for generating, determining and submitting data as such do not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F .3 d 1299, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation").
Accordingly, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative then argues that under the Revised Step 2B Analysis: The Applicant
submits that the claimed subject matter amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself and that the applicant's claimed subject matter includes limitations that add specific limitations that is other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field of resource monitoring and allocation.
In response, the reliance of a processor with a memory or computing device to perform their
routine tasks even more accurately is not sufficient to transform a claim into patent eligible subject matter as noted in Alice 134 S. Ct. at 2359. As indicated by the court "use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions and issue simultaneous instructions" was not an inventive incept. The claims or even the applicant's specification does not support or provide or claim any specifically inventive technology or algorithm for performing the claimed functions.
As noted in the applicant’s specification, there is not a specific structure or computer components to perform the claimed functions. The generic processor with a memory and a computing device can be any known server or computer processor or software or hardware components. However, there is not a specific or new algorithm noted in the applicant’s specification to generate the claimed functions. The claimed processor and computing device noted in the applicant's specification are routine computer processors or computers performing generic computer functions.
Furthermore., there is not a showing or description of determining, detecting, generating and submitting data to effect specific improvements to the processor or computing device. Furthermore there is a lacking of evidence that the claims improve the manner in which the processor computing device generates and receives data or information, and provides data to the computing system, as the claims in Enfish had performed their claimed invention via a “self-referential table” for a computer database. Applicant is being referred to Enfish, 822, F.3d at 1327, 1337.
The instant claims merely generate, detect, obtain and submit data. These are routine and generic computer functions for processing or effecting the abstract idea. Hence, there is not a significant improvement of the computing system or mobile device or the architecture of the overall system.
The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, are merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
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.
Specifically, claims 1-10 are directed to a system. Claims 11-20 are directed to a method. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
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).
The claims when the bolded limitations are removed recite the following limitations:
Claim 1 recites:
(Currently Amended) A computing system, comprising:
a processor;
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to:
determine at least one trigger condition relating to allocation of computing resources associated with a resource account;
detect the at least one trigger condition based on real-time analysis of resource transfers of computing resources in connection with the resource account;
determine a set of computing operations, actions based on the resource transfer data, the at least one trigger condition, and customer information;
generate text prompts for a large language model (LLM)to obtain recommendations output in connection with one or more of the computing operations actions of the determined set;
obtain, via a chat function of a virtual assistant module executing on a client computing device, input of responses to the recommendations data; and
submit requests, via API calls, to one or more third-party service providers in order to perform the one or more computing operations actions, the API calls being generated based on the inputted responses and formatted to comply with requirements for querying APIs associated with the third-party service providers.
Claims 2 and 12 recite wherein the at least one trigger condition relates to a quantity of resources that are allocated to a user-defined goal for the resource account.
Claim 3 recites when executed, further configure the processor to receive user input of an indication of the user-defined goal and a first quantity of resources of the resource account for allocating to the goal.
Claims 4 and 14 recite wherein the customer information comprises at least one of profile information, personal preference data, or indications of budgeting patterns and spending behaviors.
Claims 5 and 15 recite wherein the set of actions includes at least one of:
Obtaining, via API calls, itinerary or reservations data from a first data store;
Obtaining, via AP calls, product reviews data from a second data store; or
Completing, via API calls, reservations on one or more third-party service provider platforms.
Claims 6 and 16 recite wherein detecting the at least one trigger condition comprises:
obtaining historical transactions data associated with the resource account; and
determining that a first user-defined goal has been achieved based on the historical transactions data.
Claim 7 recites when executed, further configure the processor to parse the historical transactions data and identify one or more resource transfers that relate to the first user-defined goal.
Claim 8 recites wherein the customer-inputted responses comprise at least selections of one or more desired itinerary items, and wherein the instructions, when executed, further configure the processor to initiate, via API calls, reservations using the selected one or more itinerary items.
Claim 9 recites when executed, further configure the processor to:
determine that completion of a first user-defined goal is imminent based on historical transactions data associated with the resource account; and
generate notifications for alerting a user associated with the resource account regarding the imminent completion.
Claims 10 and 20 recite wherein determining that completion of the first user- defined goal is imminent comprises detecting proximity to at least one of a user-inputted defined date or quantity of allocated resources.
Claim 11 recite:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
determining at least one trigger condition relating to allocation of computing resources associated with a resource account;
detecting the at least one trigger condition based on real-time analysis of resource transfers of computing resources in connection with the resource account;
determining a set of computing operations based on the resource transfer data, the at least one trigger condition, and customer information;
generating text prompts for a large language model (LLM)to obtain recommendations output in connection with one or more of the computing operations of the determined set;
obtaining, via a chat function of a virtual assistant module executing on a client computing device, input of responses to the recommendations data; and
submitting requests, via API calls, to one or more third-party service providers in order to perform the one or more computing operations, the API calls being generated based on the inputted responses and formatted to comply with requirements for querying APIs associated with the third-party service providers.
Claim 17 recites parsing the historical transactions data and identifying one or more resource transfers that relate to the first user-defined goal.
Claim 18 recites wherein the customer-inputted responses comprise at least selections of one or more desired itinerary items, and wherein the method further comprises initiating, via API calls, reservations using the selected one or more itinerary items.
Claim 19 recites determining that completion of a first user-defined goal is imminent based on historical transactions data associated with the resource account; and
generating notifications for alerting a user associated with the resource account regarding the imminent completion.
The functions of “determine or determining”, “detect or detecting”, “generating or generate”, involve mental processes and/or generic computer functions.
The function of “transmitting or transmit” involves an insignificant post solution activity.
The function of “submitting or submit” involves a human activity.
The functions of “obtaining or obtain” and “receiving or receive” involve data gathering functions.
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as performing mental processes and a commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligation, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors or business relations.
because it amounts to the functions of:
“determine a set of operations, actions based on the resource transfer data, the at least one trigger condition, and customer information, generate text prompts to obtain recommendations output in connection with one or more of the computing operations actions of the determined set, obtain, input of responses to the recommendations data, and submit requests, to one or more third-party service providers in order to perform the one or more computing operations actions, being generated based on the inputted responses and formatted to comply with requirements for querying APIs associated with the third-party service providers”.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application, In particular, the clams recite the above noted bolded limitations understood to be the additional limitations.
The claimed “computing system of a “processor”, “API calls” are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or computer system.
Performing steps by a generic machine, or server computing device merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05.
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to
insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
Detecting data, generating data and determining data are similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims in the instant application are performed by one or more processors or computing device which collects data, stores data and calculate data.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of functions of having to:
“determine a set of actions based on the resource transfer data, the at least one trigger condition, and customer information, to obtain recommendations output in connection with one or more of the actions of the determined set; obtain input of responses to the recommendations data; and submit requests, to one or more third-party service providers in order to perform the one or more actions”.
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in
Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Collecting and receiving or obtaining data by electronic means or hardware amount to receiving data over a network has been recognized by the courts as routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)UD, citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (Utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G10, L18 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir. 2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fic., 788 B.Ad 1359, 1363, Lis USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network}, buySAFE, fic. v. Google, Inc.. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Positively reciting a “processor” with “memory” and API calls does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. The claimed processor are noted to a be a generic computer for obtaining or receiving data and for performing routine computer functions therein. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the
claimed “processor”, “memory” and “API calls” are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be
patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
The prior art taken alone or in combination failed to teach or suggest: generate text
prompts for a large language model to obtain recommendation data in connection with one or more of the computing operations of a determined set, obtain, via a chat function of a virtual assistant module executing on a client computing device, input of responses to the recommendations data; and submit requests, via API calls, to one or more third-party service providers in order to perform the one or more computing operations, the API calls being generated based on the inputted responses and formatted to comply with requirements for querying APIs associated with the third-party service providers” as recited in claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claim 11.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
January 26, 2026