DETAILED ACTION
This rejection is in response to Amendments filed 06/25/2026.
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 2, 14, and 18 are cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites: a user interface generation system generating an interactive user interface based the identification number… Examiner recommends amending claims to recite “…based on the identification number.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites: generating an interactive user interface based on the identification number using one or more machine learning models the interactive user interface personalized to the user. Examiner recommends amending claims to include a common and recite: generating an interactive user interface based on the identification number using one or more machine learning models, the interactive user interface personalized to the user.
Drawings Objection
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Figures 6-9 filed on 12/18/2024 are color drawings without the appropriate fee, petition, and statement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 06/25/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to claims 1 and 3-7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to claims 1 and 3-7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments on page 7 of remarks filed 06/25/2026 that the amendments to claims 8 and 16 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection (e.g. causing the interactive user interface to be presented), Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims 8 and 16 have not been amended to clarify the interactive user interface is transmitted to the output for display. Claims 8 and 16 still recite: causing the interactive user interface to be presented. Examiner recommends amending claims 8 and 16 similar to the amendments in claim 1 to recite “transmitting” rather than “causing.”
With respect to Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-8 of remarks filed 06/25/2026 that "provider system," "user interface generation system", and "identification number generation system" are not generic terms invoking § 112(f) and are not indefinite under § 112(b) because these terms are the names of specific, identified computer systems as shown in FIGs. 1 and 2 and the specification describes the provider system as including one or more computing devices and any and/or all of the systems be special purpose computing devices configured to perform specific functions, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the first prong of this analysis, a claim element that does not include the term "means" or "step" triggers a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply. When the claim limitation does not use the term "means," examiners should determine whether the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply is overcome. The presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder (a term that is simply a substitute for the term "means"). The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Instead of using "means" in such cases, a substitute term acts as a generic placeholder for the term "means" and would not be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed function. "The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349, 115 USPQ2d at 1111; see also Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583, 39 USPQ2d 1783, 1786 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation if it meets the following 3-prong analysis:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
See MPEP § 2181(I)(A).
Accordingly, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate if the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor. Mere reference to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting "software" without providing detail about the means to accomplish a specific software function, would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239; Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340-41, 86 USPQ2d at 1623. In addition, merely referencing a specialized computer (e.g., a "bank computer"), some undefined component of a computer system (e.g., "access control manager"), "logic," "code," or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, will not be sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B).
The words "provider system," "user interface generation system", and "identification number generation system" do not provide any indication of structure because it sets forth the same black box recitation of structure for providing the same specified function as if the term ‘means’ had been used. Merely referencing high level figures of the system 100 in FIG. 1, the provider system 102 in FIG. 2, as well as the provider system as including one or more computing devices and any and/or all of the systems be special purpose computing devices configured to perform specific functions without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming is not an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
With respect to Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 of remarks filed 06/25/2026 that the claims are not directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity and a mental process because the claims recite technical features of using machine learning models to and the interactive user interface which improves the functioning of the computer by enabling personalized user interface generation, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The machine learning models and the interactive user interface are not analyzed as directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims were not analyzed as being directed towards a mental process. The claims are directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interaction because the claims recite receiving a product or service request, receiving user data, and generating an identification number based on the user data and the request.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-10 of remarks filed 06/25/2026 that the claims are directed towards a practical application because they impose a meaningful limit when the claims effect a technical improvement of transformation of input data into a personalized user interface using machine learning, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Whether or not a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is evaluated using the considerations set forth in subsection I below, in accordance with the procedure described below in subsection II. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
Applicant’s specification states in paragraph [0013]: [a]spects of the present disclosure involve systems and methods to process a request regarding a product or service received from a user to generate a user interface. The systems and methods described herein use one or more machine learning models to generate the user interface to provide an optimized, custom user experience. The one or more machine learning models is trained using historical data relating to successful closing of product or service sales. This results in a more user friendly interface that is customized using user data to drive successful sales of products or services.
It is not apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art how generating a personalized user interface to drive successful sales of products or services improves technology. Driving successful sales by presenting more personalized information is directed to solving a commercial problem. The claim is not directed to a practical application because the additional elements both individually and in combination do not include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component and do not qualify as an improvement.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-11 of remarks filed 06/25/2026 that the claim includes additional elements (e.g. the systems, machine learning model, user device, user interface) that amount to an inventive concept because the transformation of input data into a personalized interactive user interface has provided an improvement to the field of science for data management, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
The additional elements both individually and in combination do not amount to an inventive concept because merely using a computer that may include machine learning to identify data that is merely displayed on a user interface does not qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The management of data and personalizing what is displayed to the user may improve a commercial problem with the sales of products, however, merely using a computer as a tool to analyze data that is then displayed on a user interface does not improve technology.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-11 of remarks filed 06/25/2026 that Moore does not teach generating the identification number based on the user data and the request because Moore’s assignment of labels or classifiers are to data received from computing devices and third-party servers, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Moore teaches generate an identification number based on the user data and the request because this reference teaches facilitating identification of data for subsequent analysis by assigning labels or classifiers from data received regarding user data and the request such as data received from computing device of the buyer and agreement data of terms the buyer requests for the contract, transaction records, supply chain data, and supply chain entity data. (Moore, [0053]; [0054]; [0088]; [0053]; [0089]; [0055]; [0074]; [0086]).
With respect to Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-12 of remarks filed 06/25/2026 that Moore does not teach user data in claims 6 and 13, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Moore teaches: wherein the user data includes at least one of age, race, ethnicity, gender, marital status, income level, education level, employment status, occupation, family size, homeownership, a zip code associated with a home of the user, years of driving experience, number of vehicles owned by the user, age of one or more vehicles owned by the user, value of one or more vehicles owned by the user, a number of accidents, a number of insurance claims, an age of the home owned by the user, a value of the home owned by the user, location density of a location associated with the home of the user, years of being a customer, profitability of the user, digital engagement of the user, or a credit score of the user because this reference teaches digital engagement of the user such as data derived from user interactions on the user interactive platform of the system (Moore, [0036]; [0033]; [0085]).
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The system claims 1 and 3-7 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 recites: [a] system comprising: a provider system in communication with a user device over a network, the user device having one or more input systems and one or more output systems, the provider system receiving a request captured via the one or more input systems through interaction of a user with the one or more input systems, the request associated with at least one of a product or a service, the provider system configured to receive user data associated with the user; an identification number generation system generating an identification number based on the user data and the request using the one or more machine learning models, the interactive user interface generated using the identification number; and a user interface generation system generating an interactive user interface based on the identification number using one or more machine learning models, the interactive user interface personalized to the user, the provider system transmitting the interactive user interface to be presented using the one or more output systems.
Claim 3 recites: [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the provider system is configured to receive a user selection via the one or more input systems through interaction by the user with the interactive user interface, the user selection indicating at least one of the service or the product the user desires to purchase.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 16 recites: generating an identification number based on the user data and the request using one or more machine learning models; generating an interactive user interface based on the identification number using one or more machine learning models the interactive user interface personalized to the user, rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the first recitation of one or more machine learning models is the same or different from the subsequent recitation of one or more machine learning models. Appropriate correction of clarification is required.
Independent claims 8 and 16 recite: causing the interactive user interface to be presented, rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear what is being performed. It is clear that the display of the user interface is not required by a potential infringer, but merely the causing of the display to be presented. But what does that entail? When is the display “caused”? How is it “caused”? What is the scope? Appropriate correction of clarification is required.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitation in:
Independent claims 1 and 8 recite: generating an identification number based on the user data and the request using the one or more machine learning models, the interactive user interface. Appropriate correction of clarification is required.
Claims 1 and 3-7 recite claim limitations “provider system,” “user interface generation system,” and “identification number generation system” to perform functions which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The instant claim 1 and 3-7 are indefinite because they fail to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts performing the entire claimed functions of the generic placeholders (e.g. provider system, user interface generation system, and identification number generation system) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 3-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. See MPEP § 2106. In the instant case, claims 1 and 3-7 are directed to a system, claims 8-13 and 15 are directed to a method, and claims 16-17 and 19-20 are directed to a tangible non-transitory computer readable storage media which falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention(process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under revised step 2:
Under step 2A (prong 1) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding representative independent claim 1, recites the abstract idea of:
receiving a request…, the request associated with at least one of a product or a service, …receive user data associated with the user;
generating an identification number based on the user data and the request…
The above-recited limitations amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interaction such as receiving a product or service request, receiving user data, and generating an identification number. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts. See MPEP § 2106.
The Step 2A (prong 2) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
A system comprising: a provider system in communication with a user device over a network, the user device having one or more input systems and one or more output systems, the provider system … captured via the one or more input systems through interaction of a user with the one or more input systems, …, the provider system configured to …; an identification number generation system … using the one or more machine learning models, the interactive user interface generated using the identification number; and a user interface generation system generating an interactive user interface based on the identification number using one or more machine learning models, the interactive user interface personalized to the user, the provider system transmitting the interactive user interface to be presented using the one or more output systems (Claim 1);
wherein the provider system is configured to … via the one or more input systems through interaction by the user with the interactive user interface, ....(Claims 3 and 10);
…wherein the interactive user interface is one of a plurality of user interfaces configured to...(Claims 4, 11, and 19);
…, wherein the plurality of user interfaces include at least one of selectable inputs ....(Claims 5, 12, and 20)
…wherein the interactive user interface includes a plurality of portions, each of the plurality of portions are individually generated based on the user data and the request using the one or more machine learning models (Claims 7 and 9);
…captured via an interaction with one or more input systems by a user;… using the one or more machine learning models, the interactive user interface generated using the identification number; generating an interactive user interface based on the identification number using one or more machine learning models, the interactive user interface personalized to the user; and causing the interactive user interface to be presented using one or more output systems (Claim 8);
…wherein the one or more input systems and the one or more output systems are integrated into a user device (Claim 15);
One or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer- executable instructions for performing a computer process on a computing system, the computer process comprising:… captured via an interaction with one or more input systems associated with a user device by a user; … using one or more machine learning models; generating an interactive user interface based on the identification number using one or more machine learning models the interactive user interface personalized to the user; and causing the interactive user interface to be presented using one or more output systems associate with the user device (Claim 16);
…wherein the one or more machine learning models is trained...(Claim 17).
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Independent claims and dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. See MPEP § 2106.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
A system comprising: a provider system in communication with a user device over a network, the user device having one or more input systems and one or more output systems, the provider system … captured via the one or more input systems through interaction of a user with the one or more input systems, …, the provider system configured to …; an identification number generation system … using the one or more machine learning models, the interactive user interface generated using the identification number; and a user interface generation system generating an interactive user interface based on the identification number using one or more machine learning models, the interactive user interface personalized to the user, the provider system transmitting the interactive user interface to be presented using the one or more output systems (Claim 1);
wherein the provider system is configured to … via the one or more input systems through interaction by the user with the interactive user interface, ....(Claims 3 and 10);
…wherein the interactive user interface is one of a plurality of user interfaces configured to...(Claims 4, 11, and 19);
…, wherein the plurality of user interfaces include at least one of selectable inputs ....(Claims 5, 12, and 20)
…wherein the interactive user interface includes a plurality of portions, each of the plurality of portions are individually generated based on the user data and the request using the one or more machine learning models (Claims 7 and 9);
…captured via an interaction with one or more input systems by a user;… using the one or more machine learning models, the interactive user interface generated using the identification number; generating an interactive user interface based on the identification number using one or more machine learning models, the interactive user interface personalized to the user; and causing the interactive user interface to be presented using one or more output systems (Claim 8);
…wherein the one or more input systems and the one or more output systems are integrated into a user device (Claim 15);
One or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer- executable instructions for performing a computer process on a computing system, the computer process comprising:… captured via an interaction with one or more input systems associated with a user device by a user; … using one or more machine learning models; generating an interactive user interface based on the identification number using one or more machine learning models the interactive user interface personalized to the user; and causing the interactive user interface to be presented using one or more output systems associate with the user device (Claim 16);
…wherein the one or more machine learning models is trained...(Claim 17).
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because the recitations above do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore et al. (US Pub. No. 20230410210 A1, hereinafter “Moore”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 16
Moore discloses a system comprising: a provider system in communication with a user device over a network, the user device having one or more input systems and one or more output systems (Moore, FIG. 1, [0020]: system implemented by computer system that interfaces with client devices; [0095]: devices include output device; [0096]: devices include input device),
the provider system receiving a request captured via the one or more input systems through interaction of a user with the one or more input systems, the request associated with at least one of a product or a service (Moore, [0033]: user interactive platform to request supply chain insurance contracts; [0034]: supply chain insurance contracts cover a particular product or a group of similar products; [0086]: buyer requests a supply chain insurance contract a product indicated by the request; [0096]: receive user input from user via input device of user computing device),
the provider system configured to receive user data associated with the user (Moore, [0088]: retrieve existing supply chain contracts from buyer; [0053]: retrieved data includes agreement data; [0089]: data is collected relating to terms of supply chain insurance contracts based on underlying supply chain contract and the data is then collected);
an identification number generation system configured to generate an identification number based on the user data and the request using the one or more machine learning models, the interactive user interface generated using the identification number (Moore, [0053]: agreement data include terms (e.g. type of product, maximum and/or minimum quantities of the product, and delivery, pricing, timing); [0054]: assign labels or classifiers to data received to facilitate identification of data when executing machine learning engine; [0088]: retrieve existing supply chain contracts from buyer; [0053]: retrieved data includes agreement data; [0089]: data is collected relating to terms of supply chain insurance contracts based on underlying supply chain contract and the data is then collected and parsed by training engine 202, which includes this data in the training dataset used to train one or more of the modules implemented by the machine learning engine 130 to generate agreeable terms based on terms of existing supply chain contracts; [0055]: The user interface component 128 may also be configured to present supply chain insurance contracts that include terms generated by the machine learning engine 130 to computing devices 104-110, and enable other interactions on the platform; [0074]: generate the market rate based on, for example, an average economic costs of buyers and suppliers; [0086]: The request may cause the machine learning engine 130 to predict agreeable terms of a supply chain insurance contract covering a product indicated by the request, and the SCI server 102 may subsequently notify relevant entities);
and a user interface generation system configured to generate an interactive user interface based on the identification number using one or more machine learning models, the interactive user interface personalized to the user, the provider system transmitting the interactive user interface to be presented using the one or more output systems (Moore, [0088]: retrieve existing supply chain contracts from buyer; [0053]: retrieved data includes agreement data; [0089]: data is collected relating to terms of supply chain insurance contracts based on underlying supply chain contract and the data is then collected and parsed by training engine 202, which includes this data in the training dataset used to train one or more of the modules implemented by the machine learning engine 130 to generate agreeable terms based on terms of existing supply chain contracts; [0055]: The user interface component 128 may also be configured to present supply chain insurance contracts that include terms generated by the machine learning engine 130 to computing devices 104-110, and enable other interactions on the platform; [0057]: machine learning algorithms or models that work together to identify or classify features of data in the database that can be used to enable machine learning engine 130 to generate appropriate outputs; [0078]: display information associated with outputs generated by the machine learning engine 130 such as display information about products that the market module 204 predicts are suitable for supply chain insurance and buyers; [0109]: the supply chain insurance information actually matches their interests; [0110]: the input received at 614 may be actual interaction data and the training engine 202 may infer from this data that the information presented on the user platform is agreeable to the one or more terms determined at 610; [0095]: devices include output device for presenting information).
Regarding claim 16
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 1. However, claim 16 include additional limitations: “[o]ne or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer- executable instructions for performing a computer process on a computing system, the computer process comprising:” (Moore, [0008] and [0048]).
Regarding claims 3 and 10
Moore discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the provider system is configured to receive a user selection via the one or more input systems through interaction by the user with the interactive user interface, the user selection indicating at least one of the service or the product the user desires to purchase (Moore, [0109]: user input may be received by presenting a selectable prompt on user platform; [0053]: agreement data received from buyer device which include terms (e.g. type of product); [0079]: present contracts on user interactive platform to enable supply chain entities to accept and enter into the contract; [0033]: supply chain entities may use the user-interactive platform to accept contracts; [0040]: supply chain entities include buyer; [0055]: user interface enables interactions on platform; [0086]: purchase contracts).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 19
Moore discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the interactive user interface is one of a plurality of user interfaces configured to direct the user through a process to purchase at least one of the product or the service (Moore, [0086]: Entities may also be able to purchase where the platform 500 may also provide notifications to entities that enter into supply chain insurance contracts, providing visibility into each step in the process. The notifications may be provided to track production, track a shipment, and the like; [0055]: user interface component transmits signal to a plurality of computing devices to communicate and display the user platform to the user interface within the application executing on the plurality of computing devices; Moore, [0033]: user interactive platform to request supply chain insurance contracts; [0034]: supply chain insurance contracts cover a particular product or a group of similar products).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 20
Moore discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the plurality of user interfaces include at least one of selectable inputs associated with at least one of the product or the service, a price change compared to at least one of a current product or a current service used by the user, a recommendation indicating at least one of an additional product or an additional service, an explanation of at least one of the product or the service, a comparison to consumers with similar characteristics as the user, or a notifications associated with at least one of the product or the service (Moore, [0109]: user input may be received by presenting a selectable prompt on user platform; [0053]: agreement data received from buyer device which include terms (e.g. type of product); [0079]: present contracts on user interactive platform to enable supply chain entities to accept and enter into the contract; [0086]: Entities may also be able to purchase where the platform 500 may also provide notifications to entities that enter into supply chain insurance contracts, providing visibility into each step in the process; [0055]: user interface component; Moore, [0033]: user interactive platform to request supply chain insurance contracts; [0034]: supply chain insurance contracts cover a particular product or a group of similar products; [0091]: fluctuating bidding prices; [0111]: recommending supply chain insurance contracts to entities on the platform).
Regarding claims 6 and 13
Moore discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the user data includes at least one of age, race, ethnicity, gender, marital status, income level, education level, employment status, occupation, family size, homeownership, a zip code associated with a home of the user, years of driving experience, number of vehicles owned by the user, age of one or more vehicles owned by the user, value of one or more vehicles owned by the user, a number of accidents, a number of insurance claims, an age of the home owned by the user, a value of the home owned by the user, location density of a location associated with the home of the user, years of being a customer, profitability of the user, digital engagement of the user, or a credit score of the user (Moore, [0036]: data derived from user interactions on a user interactive supply chain insurance platform; [0033]: data related to user interactions on the platform is used to update the training dataset to further refine and/or retrain the modules implemented by the ML engine; [0085]: receive and store data related to user interactions through the models executing on the platform 500. Training engine 202 may parse this data to further refine and/or retrain the modules implemented by the machine learning engine 130).
Regarding claims 7 and 9
Moore discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the interactive user interface includes a plurality of portions, each of the plurality of portions are individually generated based on the user data and the request using the one or more machine learning models (Moore, [0088]: retrieve existing supply chain contracts from buyer; [0053]: retrieved data includes agreement data; [0089]: data is collected relating to terms of supply chain insurance contracts; [0055]: The user interface component 128 may also be configured to present supply chain insurance contracts that include terms generated by the machine learning engine 130 to computing devices 104-110, and enable other interactions on the platform; [0078]: display a plurality of information associated with outputs generated by the machine learning engine 130; [0109]: the supply chain insurance information actually matches their interests; [0110]: the input received at 614 may be actual interaction data and the training engine 202 may infer from this data that the information presented on the user platform is agreeable to the one or more terms determined at 610; [0095]: devices include output device for presenting information).
Regarding claim 15
Moore discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the one or more input systems and the one or more output systems are integrated into a user device (Moore, FIG. 1, [0020]: system implemented by computer system that interfaces with client devices; [0095]: devices include output device; [0096]: devices include input device).
Regarding claim 17
Moore discloses the one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions for performing the computer process on the computing system of claim 16, wherein the one or more machine learning models is trained using historical user data relating to one or more consumers purchasing at least one of the product or the service (Moore, [0027]: machine learning model ingest a set of historical supply chain records regarding product transacted; [0072]: historical prices for products).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited as Espinosa et al. (US Pub. No. 20190156079 A1) related to monitoring, tracking, locating and reporting product order placement and fulfillment, Stenerson et al. (US Pub. No. 20220043964 A1) related to providing at least one of information about the user action or the contextual document data as input to a machine-learning (ML) model, and non-patent literature, Motor Claims Processing: Digital Solutions Review and Assessment, related to using artificial intelligence for insurance claims.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LATASHA DEVI RAMPHAL whose telephone number is (571)272-2644. The examiner can normally be reached 11 AM - 7:30 PM (EST).
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764 and Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/LATASHA D RAMPHAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights