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 .
Status of Claims
The following is Office Action on the merits in response to the communication received on 12/23/25.
Claim status:
Amended claims: 1, 7, 13, 15, and 20
Canceled claims: none
Added New claims: None
Pending claims: 1-20
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 not directed to statutory subject matter. Specifically, the invention of claims 1-20 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 13 and 20 are directed to a method (claims 1 and 13), and a system, (claim 20). Therefore on its face, each of claims 1, 13 and 20 is directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the 2019 PEG. However each of claims 1, 13 and 20 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, under Step 2A (Prong One and Prong Two) and Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, which is a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. 101, as detailed below. Using the language of independent claim 1 to illustrate the claim recites the limitations of, (i) identifying, via a browser extension associated with a first entity and based on content scraped from a portal associated with a second entity different from the first entity, a data requirement associated with an individual for an interaction, the portal being output on a third entity different than the first and second entities; (ii) verifying in near real time, via the browser extension and by accessing a system associated with the first entity, whether a data element associated with the individual satisfies the data requirement; (iii) determining, via the browser extension and by accessing the system associated with the first entity, first information associated with the interaction based on verifying that the data element associated with the individual satisfies the data requirement and based on the second entity; and (iv) causing, via the browser extension, to output a first visual indication of a result of the verifying proximate to the content presented on the display, the first visual indication including a selectable element configured to upload a file and subsequently (ii) a second visual indication of the first information associated with the interaction in place of the first visual indication under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) covers methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices - mitigating risk but for the recitation of generic computers and generic computer components. (Independent claims 13 and 20 recite similar limitations and the analysis is the same).
That is, other than reciting a display of a user device nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being directed to organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices - mitigating risk. If a claim limitation under its BRI, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computers, then the limitations fall within the “methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance 84 Fed.Reg 50 (“2019 PEG”).
This “methods of organizing human activity” is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A prong Two of the 2019 PEG. In particular claim 1 recites the following additional elements of, a display of a user device. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements – a display of a user device.
The display of a user device is recited at a high-level or generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that, it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea with a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly these 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the 2019 PEG independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a display of a user device, identifying, via a browser extension associated with a first entity and based on content scraped from a portal associated with a second entity different from the first entity, a data requirement associated with an individual for an interaction, the portal being output on a third entity different than the first and second entities; verifying in near real time, via the browser extension and by accessing a system associated with the first entity, whether a data element associated with the individual satisfies the data requirement; determining, via the browser extension and by accessing the system associated with the first entity, first information associated with the interaction based on verifying that the data element associated with the individual satisfies the data requirement and based on the second entity; and causing, via the browser extension, to output a first visual indication of a result of the verifying proximate to the content presented on the display, the first visual indication including a selectable element configured to upload a file and subsequently (ii) a second visual indication of the first information associated with the interaction in place of the first visual indication, amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea with a computer. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed individually are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-12 and 14-19 merely further explain the abstract idea.
When viewed individually the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments overcome the 103 Rejections, therefore, the Rejection(s) are moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC § 101
The Applicant states “claim 1 improves a user interface and is therefore integrated into a practical application” (page 11). The Examiner disagrees with the sentence because the claims are an improvement of the abstract idea only. It is a business solution to a business problem of data verification. The applicant has not shown how the claims improve a computer or other technology, invoke a particular machine, transform matter, or provide more than a general link between the abstraction and the technology, MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) & (e). The Examiner disagrees that the Invention is like example 37 (page 11). The claims do not provide an improvement over prior systems and only adds details to the abstract idea, they do not address a problem particular to the Internet and merely applies the abstract idea on a general computer. The amended claims make the abstract idea more specific, and data verification is not an unconventional activity. This is not an inventive concept and significantly more.
35 USC § 103
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments overcome the 103 Rejections, therefore, the Rejection(s) are moot.
Conclusion
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 MARLA HUDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694