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
This action is in reply to the application filed on July 20, 2026.
Claims 1-6 and 8-30 were amended.
Claim(s) 1-30 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the amended claims are non-abstract and patent-eligible for at least the same reasons recited in USPTO Example 47 claim 1. Examiner disagrees. Unlike Example 47 claim 1, Applicant’s claimed invention is not directed towards a physical object. Applicant’s claimed invention is directed towards an abstract enrollment process that include additional computer components for the purpose of implementing the abstract enrollment process in a computer environment. Because Example 47 claim 1 does not recite a judicial exception while Applicant’s claimed invention does, the two are not analogous. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the amended claims are patent-eligible for reasons analogous in some respects to Ex parte Desjardins. Examiner disagrees. Unlike Applicant’s claimed invention, the patent-eligible subject matter in Ex parte Desjardins addresses a technological limitation in machine learning technology. Applicant’s claimed invention, in contrast, merely uses machine learning technology as a tool without improving upon it. Improving a model’s generation of later outputs is a feature of machine learning models in general and is not an improvement of the model itself. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s 101 rejection was improper because the amended claims are also analogous in some respects to the claims in McRO. Examiner disagrees. Unlike Applicant’s claimed invention, the patent-eligible subject matter in McRO represents an improvement in computer functionality. In contrast, Applicant’s claimed invention merely used computer components as tools to implement an abstract idea. Therefore, Examiner finds Applicant’s argument non-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.
Claim(s) 1-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-30 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 16 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method Claim 1. Claim 16 recites the following limitations:
[at least one memory; and]
[at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one processor configured to:] set numeric weights between neurons [of a trained machine learning model using training data] that includes examples of product category configurations for different product categories, entity configurations for different entities, and offering configurations for different offerings;
identify an offering in a product category that is to be offered by an entity;
process a product category configuration associated with the product category and an entity configuration associated with the entity through [the trained machine learning model] to generate an offering configuration, wherein the product category configuration and the entity configuration are [hierarchical configuration data structures] linked according to a hierarchy, wherein [the trained machine learning model] generates a combination of a product setting from the product category configuration and an entity setting from the predetermined entity configuration based on the hierarchy and the numeric weights and for inclusion in the offering configuration, and wherein the combination differs from both the product category configuration and the entity configuration;
customize the offering configuration for a user according to user information from [a user profile data structure] to generate a customized offering, wherein the customized offering is associated with a customized variant of the combination that is adjusted based on the user information;
enroll the user in the customized offering on behalf of the entity and according to the customized variant of the combination, wherein enrolling includes generating a record and storing the record [in a mapping database via an application programming interface], and wherein the record maps an entity identifier of the entity to the user information and the customized offering;
process a transaction according to the customized offering as retrieved from the record [in the mapping database via the application programming interface], wherein the transaction is between the user and the entity; and
update at least one of the numeric weights [of the trained machine learning model] based on the hierarchy and on feedback associated with the customized offering to reduce error for further evaluations.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic principle or practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The at least one memory, at least one processor, database, trained machine learning model using training data, hierarchical configuration data structures, user profile data structure, and mapping database via an application programming interface in Claim 16 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim(s) 1 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of at least one memory, at least one processor, database, trained machine learning model using training data, hierarchical configuration data structures, user profile data structure, and mapping database via an application programming interface. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to 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 and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim(s) 1 and 16 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 computer hardware/software 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. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim(s) 1 and 16 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 5-7, 11, 13, 20-22, 26, and 28 include the additional element of a machine learning model. The machine learning model does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself because it is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e., a machine learning model). Dependent claims 2-4, 8-10, 12, 17-19, 23-25, 27, and 29-30 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and 16 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 2-4, 8-10, 12, 17-19, 23-25, 27, and 29-30 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-15 and 17-30 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 1-30 are not patent-eligible.
Subject Matter Distinguished from Prior Art
The prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features of claims 1-30. In light of Applicant's remarks, Examiner agrees that the cited reference(s) of Singh, Agbamu, and Leoputera do not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention. Singh teaches a system and method of managing a payment network that includes offering an installment plan to customers. Agbamu teaches a transaction management system and onboarding process for customers. Leoputera teaches a system and method for the optimization of financing programs. However, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious limitations to compare information associated with the offering to the predetermined product category configuration and the predetermined entity configuration to generate an evaluation of the offering, wherein a trained machine learning model is used for the comparison; and customize the offering configuration for a user according to user information to generate a customized offering, wherein the customized offering is associated with a customized variant of the third plurality of settings in which at least one setting of the third plurality of settings is adjusted based on the user information; as described by the allowed claims. For these reasons, claims 1-30 are deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Lash (US 11,568,481) discloses a system and method for intelligently bundling payments.
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 of 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 extension fee 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 JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 12:00 pm - 8:00 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, Michael W Anderson can be reached on 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.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
September 4, 2026
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights