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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on 05/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 4-5, 10-11, 14-15, 20 have been amended. Claims 3, 13 have been canceled. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15 and 17-20 are pending.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims at a high level recite organizing prompts for query execution.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15 and 17-20 recite a method, product and a system and therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine and a product.
The USPTO Guidance recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (Step 2A, Prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2). MPEP §§ 2106.04(a), (d).
Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look in Step 2B to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field; or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
First, determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Claim 1 recites –
▪ generating a first user interface displaying a plurality of prompts, wherein each prompt of the plurality of prompts represents a filter for data targeted by subsequent queries (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can specify filters for subsequent searching),
▪ receiving, via the first user interface, a first user selection of a graphical element to combine the plurality of prompts into one or more groups of prompts (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can combine plurality of options into groups);
▪ enabling the one or more groups of prompts to be specified as mandatory or optional via the first user interface, wherein the one or more groups of prompts comprises 1) a first prompt group specified as mandatory, in which a user must answer at least one prompt from the first prompt group before a query can be executed, and 2) a second prompt group specified as optional, in which the user is not required to answer any prompts from the second prompt group before the query can be executed (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can determine and designate what prompts to be mandatory and optional);
▪ generating a second user interface that is different from the first user interface in response to the first user selection received via the first user interface, the second user interface displaying the one or more groups of prompts, each group of prompts being expandable to show all prompts within the group, alongside filter values corresponding to a selected group of prompts (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can present such prompt groups, as a hierarchy with corresponding values on a piece of paper);
▪ receiving, via the second user interface, a second user selection of one or more of the filter values corresponding to the selected group of prompts (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can specify filters for searching);
▪ executing a query responsive to the second user selection received via the second user interface, wherein the one or more filter values filter data returned by the query (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can logically or manually search for information based on values specified in prompts); and
▪ returning the filtered data to a first computing device (A generic computer functions of receiving and processing that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Extracting caption data and natural text processing are merely extra-solution activities and does not meaningfully limit the independent claims. Generic computer implementation does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component- see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
These limitations, based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a mental process, i.e. a judicial exception. For these reasons, the independent claim 1, as well as independents claims 11 and 20, which include limitations commensurate in scope with claim 1, recite a judicial exception.
A method, like the claimed method, “a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” See Digitech Image Techs, LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results from certain results of the collection and analysis was held to be an abstract idea. See In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 795—96 (CCPA 1982), which held that “a mental process that a neurologist should follow” when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions was not patentable.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
Next determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). To integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claim elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Additional elements:
▪ A computer-implemented method, a first computing device (Amount to “Apply it”. Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Examiner’s note: high level application of using machine learning model to classify document amount to merely invoking a computer component to apply the exception);
▪ first, second user interfaces and executing a query (A generic computer functions of displaying and processing that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Extracting caption data and natural text processing are merely extra-solution activities and does not meaningfully limit the independent claims. Generic computer implementation does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component- see MPEP 2106.05(f));
The term “additional elements” for claim features, limitations, or steps that the claim recites beyond the identified judicial exception. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “computer-implemented method”, claim 10 additionally recite “at least one processor; and at least one memory” and claim 20 recites “non-transitory computer readable storage medium.” However, claims do not recite any improvements to these additional elements, nor does the claims recite any particularly programmed or configured computer system, device, or machine learning. Rather, the additional elements in claims 1, 10 and 20 serve merely to automate the abstract idea. See Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., 50 F. 4" 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“[A] patent that ‘automate[s] “pen and paper methodologies” to conserve human resources and minimize errors’ is a ‘quintessential “do it on a computer” patent’ directed to an abstract idea.”) (quoting Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Therefore, none of these recited additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements listed above that relate to computing components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as communicating and processing known data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. There is no technological problem that the claimed invention solves. Rather, the computer system is invoked merely as a tool. 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. Therefore, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
(see MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il). Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer and associated computer network to obtain data, use data to identify other data, and comparing data, are some of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of displaying, processing and storing data using some unspecified, generic computer).
For these reasons, independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 10 and 20, which include similar additional elements as claim 1, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
Next, determine whether the claims recite an “inventive concept” that “must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer.” BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see MPEP § 2106.05(d). There must be more than “computer functions [that] are “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225 (2014) (second alteration in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)); see MPEP § 2106.05(d).
No “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract method of organizing human activity into a patent-eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05. Rather, the additional elements identified above are merely well-understood, conventional computer components, as confirmed by the Specification. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(1). For example, the Specification refers to the additional elements in generic terms.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements relating to computing components amount to no more than applying the exception using a generic computing components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed computer components (i.e., additional elements) includes any generic computing components that are capable of being programmed to communicate and process known data.
Additionally, the computer components are used for performing insignificant extra-solution activity and well understood, routine, and conventional functions. For example, the claimed processor and machine learning merely communicates and processes known data. Activities such as these are insignificant extra-solution activity and, therefore, well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); see also, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price); CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754 (Consulting and updating an activity log); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Recording a customer’s order); Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017) (Identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price). Furthermore, limitations such as integrating account details are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).
Step 2B: The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent system claim 1, 10 and 20 contain the identified abstract ideas, with the additional elements of a processor, hardware and the media, which is a generic computer component, and thus, not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale above.
Dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-19 do not recite additional limitations that demonstrate integration of the abstract idea into a practical application or an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claims 2, 4-5, 12, 14-15:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ prompt group is specified as optional in response to user input; enabling the one or more groups of prompts to be specified as mandatory, optional, or exclusive, wherein specifying the first prompt group as mandatory indicates that a user must answer at least one prompt from the first prompt group before the query can be executed (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can manually determine which filters are mandatory or optional.)
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Additional elements: no additional elements are recited. Step 2B: the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 2, 4-5, 12, 14-15 is ineligible.
With respect to claims 7 and 17:
▪ comprising displaying the one or more groups of prompts in an unexpanded form in the second user interface (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Additional elements: no additional elements are recited. Step 2B: the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claims 8-10 and 18-19:
▪ enabling a user to create a label to be applied as a name to each prompt group of the one or more groups of prompts (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
▪ enabling a plurality of groups of prompts to be displayed in the second user interface in an order specified by a user in the first user interface - (a generic computer functions of receiving and processing that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Extracting caption data and natural text processing are merely extra-solution activities and does not meaningfully limit the independent claims. Generic computer implementation does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component- see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
▪ one or more groups of prompts comprise a first group and a second group, and wherein the computer-implemented method further comprising enabling, within the first user interface, the second group to be added as a sub-group of the first group (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Additional elements: the additional element listed above in step 2A Prong 2 is merely instructions to be implemented on a generic computer component. Therefore, the additional element does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well understood or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Step 2A Prong 1: The claim does not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14-15, 17-19 are thus, also patent ineligible for the reasons discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedell et al. (US 7,356,758).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, Bedell teaches a computer-implemented method, a system and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising:
generating a first user interface displaying a plurality of prompts (C7L12-15, 25-31), wherein each prompt of the plurality of prompts represents a filter for data targeted by subsequent queries (C5L5-10, C7L37-41);
receiving, via the first user interface (C7L49-50), a first user selection of a graphical element to combine the plurality of prompts into one or more groups of prompts (C9L46-48, C17L49-67);
enabling the one or more groups of prompts to be specified as mandatory or optional via the first user interface (C11L62-64, C19L62-67 “incomplete prompt may not be closed until after all its inner prompt(s) have been closed”, C22L5-7, C22L15-17), wherein the one or more groups of prompts comprises
1) a first prompt group specified as mandatory, in which a user must answer at least one prompt from the first prompt group before a query can be executed (C11L62-64 “some prompt in the report has a default setting that requires user input to continue”, C21L45-47 “both prompts would be marked as Incomplete and a user would be unable to close either prompt”; C28L46-50 “user may be required to supply an answer for each blank prompt”; “prompt is preferably required to be answered”), and
2) a second prompt group specified as optional, in which the user is not required to answer any prompts from the second prompt group before the query can be executed (C22L15-17, C25L1-9, 56-58, C27L25-29, 45-46);
generating a second user interface wizard-like dialog to present these prompts to the user”),
the second user interface displaying the one or more groups of prompts (C19L44-49, C20L21-26), each group of prompts being expandable (C18L67-C19L1) to show all prompts within the group, alongside filter values corresponding to a selected group of prompts (C27L65 – C28L12, C28L28-33, C29L23-48);
receiving, via the second user interface, a second user selection of one or more of the filter values corresponding to the selected group of prompts (C22L15-21, C24L4-13, 46-54, C25L10-15, 22-17);
executing a query (C5L5-10) responsive to the second user selection received via the second user interface (C20L59-67, C21L3-10), wherein the one or more filter values filter data returned by the query (C23L43-51); and
returning the filtered data to a first computing device (C7L6-10, C9L10-20).
Bedell does not explicitly teach a second user interface that is different from the first user interface. Instead Bedell teaches populate data “a wizard-like dialog to present these prompts to the user” C19L50-51, “using normal interfaces, and prompt instances” C26L40-42. However, it is stated on the record (Official Notice - MPEP 2144.03) that a use of multiple interface is well-known in the art. Thus, a selection from a first interface and generating a second interface, different from the first interface, to display the selection – is well-known, obvious functionality, long before the earliest filing date of the present application. It is also well settled that making something separable that was integral does not convey patentability (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)). Further, the wizard-like dialogue at least implies a separately presented interfaces. Thus, the implementation of two separate user interfaces is obvious, and any particular graphical presentations would be obvious to try in order to achieve a predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedell et al. (US 7,356,758) in view of Jia et al. (US 20240296178) or Cohen et al. (US 20180308481).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, Bedell teaches a computer-implemented method, a system and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium as disclosed above.
Wherein Bedell teaches prompts that “require user input to continue” and prompts where a is “required to supply an answer”, which are construed to be mandatory prompts. Bedell teaches prompts that are prefilled with default values or blank values and does not require an explicit user input, which are construed to be optional prompts.
However, to explicitly teach - mandatory and optional prompts, either Jia or Cohen disclose –
enabling the one or more groups of prompts to be specified as mandatory or optional via the first user interface (Jia [0047] “includes a set of mandatory attributes and a set of optional attributes”; “prompt generation component determines the mandatory and optional attributes”, [0113], [0141] “determining the set of mandatory attributes and the set of optional attributes based on the identifier, where mapping the set of attributes to the set of prompt inputs includes mapping the set of mandatory attributes and the set of optional attributes to the set of prompt inputs”; Cohen [0035]), wherein the one or more groups of prompts comprises 1) a first prompt group specified as mandatory, in which a user must answer at least one prompt from the first prompt group before a query can be executed (Jia [0047] [0113], [0141], Cohen [0036]), and 2) a second prompt group specified as optional, in which the user is not required to answer any prompts from the second prompt group before the query can be executed (Jia [0047] [0113], [0141], Cohen [0036]-[0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Bedell to include mandatory and optional prompts as disclosed by Jia or Cohen. Doing so improves suggestions generated in response to the prompt and provide more comprehensive message/profile summary may include additional information that might be beneficial to a user (Jia [0047]) and provide an improved automated assistant that I can respond to more complicated requests and improve dialogue flow (Cohen [0002]).
Claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BREBER et al. (US 20210390249) in view of Bures et al. (US 20200322703) and in further view of Bedell et al. (US 7,356,758).
Regarding claim 1, BREBER teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
generating a first user interface displaying a plurality of prompts, wherein each prompt of the plurality of prompts represents a filter for data targeted by subsequent input
receiving, via the first user interface, a first user selection of a graphical element to combine the plurality of prompts into one or more groups of prompts ([0028], [0054] “make a selection or deselection of any one or more options within an option group (e.g., a group of options displayed in a sub-region, or a subgroup of options displayed within a sub-region. ... sub-region may include multiple separate option groups”, [0081] “template being configured for the patient consultation”, [0164]-[0165], F2A:204a);
enabling the one or more groups of prompts to be specified as mandatory or optional via the first user interface ([0192]), wherein the one or more groups of prompts comprises
1) a first prompt group specified as mandatory, in which a user must answer at least one prompt from the first prompt group before a query can be executed ([0055] “user may be required to select exactly a predetermined number of options in an option group”), and 2) a second prompt group specified as optional, in which the user is not required to answer any prompts from the second prompt group before the query can be executed ([0007] “display the options selected by the back-end user for optional selection by the front-end user”; [0136] “options that may be presented to a front-end user of the system for optional selection”; [0137] “medication options that may be presented to a front-end user of the system for optional selection by”, [0163]);
generating a second user interface that is different from the first user interface in response to the first user selection received via the first user interface (F2A-B:204b, [0077], [0081], [0111], [0148]-[0149], [0206], F5B-E),
the second user interface displaying the one or more groups of prompts ([0045], [0148]-[0149]),
each group of prompts being expandable to show all prompts within the group, alongside filter values corresponding to a selected group of prompts (F4B:404, see each prompt (i.e. A/P, Status, Progression), see , see F4B graphical element
PNG
media_image1.png
11
12
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which expands each group, [0046] see selectable drop-down menus, [0047]-[0048]);
receiving, via the second user interface, a second user selection of one or more of the filters corresponding to the selected group of prompts (F5D:516d, 520d, [0054]-[0055]);
executing a input
BREBER does not explicitly teach, however Bures discloses a filter for data targeted by subsequent queries ([0355], [0398], [0407], [0412], [0423]); executing a query responsive to the second user selection ([0407]) received via the second user interface, wherein the one or more filter values filter data returned by the query ([0393], [0408]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of BREBER to include subsequent queries and a query responsive to one or more values as disclosed by Bures. Doing so improves database efficiency in performing queries and other functions upon the data by enabling data to be accessed and utilized more easily by enabling users to write simpler queries upon the data due to this standardized format enabling efficiency and higher productivity (Bures [0420]).
BREBER does not explicitly teach, however Bedell discloses receiving, via the second user interface, a second user selection of one or more of the filter values corresponding to the selected group of prompts (C22L15-21, C24L4-13, 46-54, C25L10-15, 22-17) and wherein the one or more filter values filter data returned by the query (C23L43-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of BREBER to include user selection of one or more of the filter values corresponding to the selected group of prompts as disclosed by Bedell. Doing so would enables easy customization of the questions to be asked to the user (Bedell C2L31-32).
Claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, BREBER as modified teaches the method and the system, further comprising enabling the one or more groups of prompts to be specified as mandatory, optional, or exclusive (BREBER [0054]-[0055], [0163], [0192], Bures [0288] “mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive options”, [0302]).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, BREBER as modified teaches the method and the system, (BREBER [0054]-[0055], [0163], [0192], Bures [0288] “mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive options”, [0302]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, BREBER as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the first prompt group is specified as mandatory and the second prompt group is specified as optional in response to user input received via the first user interface (BREBER [0054]-[0055], [0163], [0192], Bures [0288] “mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive options”, [0302]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, BREBER as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the one or more groups of prompts further comprises a third prompt group specified as exclusive, in which the user is required to answer only one prompt from the third prompt group before the query can be executed (BREBER F2A:204a, [0054]-[0055], [0163], [0192], Bures [0288] “mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive options”, [0302]).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, BREBER as modified teaches the method and the system, further comprising displaying the one or more groups of prompts in an unexpanded form in the second user interface (BREBER F4B see + Complaint, F5A:506A, F5D:514d).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, BREBER as modified teaches the method and the system, further comprising enabling a user to create a label to be applied as a name to each prompt group of the one or more groups of prompts (BREBER [0145], [0174] ““groups” from complaint-element editing region, and the manner in which it is displayed and/or labeled in visual representation”, [0199], Bures [0298] “user-provided timestamped values and/or labels via interaction with graphical user interface”, [0392]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, BREBER as modified teaches the method and the system, further comprising enabling a plurality of groups of prompts to be displayed in the second user interface in an order specified by a user in the first user interface (BREBER [0150], [0165], [0167], Bures [0065]).
Regarding claim 10, BREBER as modified teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising enabling, within the first user interface, the second group to be added as a sub-group of the first group (BREBER F5B:502b, F5D:512d, 516d, 520d, F5E:562, [0048], [0054]).
Claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 4 and 14 is/are alternatively or additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BREBER as modified and in further view of Cohen et al. (US 20180308481) or Cansler et al. (US 6725257).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, BREBER as modified teaches the method and the system as disclosed above, Cohen or Goswami additionally teaches, wherein the first prompt group is specified as mandatory and the second prompt group is specified as optional in response to user input received via the first user interface (Cansler C3L45-67, C4L34-45, Cohen [0036]-[0037], Bures [0288] “mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive options”, [0302]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of BREBER as modified to specify prompts in response to user input as disclosed by Cansler or Cohen. Doing so allows for option data represented in a computationally efficient form and helps add flexibility to the process (Cansler C6L52-54) [0001]-[0002]) and provide an improved automated assistant that I can respond to more complicated requests and improve dialogue flow (Cohen [0002]).
Claims 5, 15 is/are alternatively or additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BREBER as modified and in further view of Goswami et al. (US 20220012273).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, BREBER as modified teaches the method and the system as disclosed above, Goswami additionally teaches the method and the system, wherein the one or more groups of prompts further comprises a third prompt group specified as exclusive in which the user is required to answer only one prompt from the third prompt group before the query can be executed ([0006], [0127], [0129], [0132], [0139]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of BREBER as modified to include indication that a user must answer at least one prompt from the first prompt group before the query can be executed as disclosed by Goswami. Doing so would help accomplish a goal of conversational flows that lead the user through inputting data in an organized and logical fashion (Goswami [0001]-[0002]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 05/18/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 are not persuasive, the applicant argues –
“the present claims are patent eligible at Step 2A Prong Two because the claims recite additional elements, and those elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the claim improves the technical field of database query processing.”; “thus improving upon conventional database query processing techniques”; “These additional limitations … ensuring query results are filtered and returned accurately and in a timely manner. The additional limitations, therefore, reflect the improvement disclosed in the specification.”
The arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claimed invention is directed to specifying filters for a search. I.e. the claimed “prompts” are nothing more them optional and mandatory filters for constraining the search . The term – “interface is a point where two separate things meet” (see any dictionary). The interface in the claims is not even defined as a graphical computer interface and certainly can be a logical human interface or a paper, but for the same of an argument, let’s assume that it is intended to be as such. The use of such common computer components to facilitate a display and transmission of information has indeed been found to be an abstract idea. The use of computer hardware and/or software components to optimize the processing of data may improve the abstract idea, but, in this context, is not a technological improvement (see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363. 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The user is interacting with the computer in a conventional manner. The effect of the contribution does not operate at the level of architecture, nor is it independent of the kind of data being processed. The contribution is instead wholly application specific in that it is limited to the described in the method which is operating entirely at the level of an application, and is wholly tied to locations that can be searched by user input query, i.e. the method cannot be applied to any arbitrary data. Relatedly, the computer, that is to say the hardware upon which the program is operating, is operating in an entirely conventional manner. The proposed technical effect is not causing the computer in of itself to operate different as the method is operating at the level of application and thus is not interacting with the hardware at a level beyond that which any computer program would do so. Similarly, the computer upon which the program is operating is not operating more efficiently or effectively. The computer itself is operating entirely conventionally and the contribution is not having an effect on the efficiency of the computer itself.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e) (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant's remaining arguments, in regard to the presently amended claims, are addressed in the updated rejections to the claims above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated on PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to POLINA G PEACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/POLINA G PEACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 July 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights