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 .
This is the Non-Final Office Action in response to the Application No. 19/237,888 filed on June 13, 2025, title: “Systems And Methods For Analysis Of User Telematics Data Using Generative AI”.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been examined.
Priority
This application was filed on 06/13/2025 and is a CON of US Application No. 18/196,691 filed on 05/12/2023 (Patented No. 12,332,928) and claims the priority of US Provisional Application Nos. 63/460,675, filed on 04/20/2023, 63/453,604, filed on 03/21/2023, 63/450,224, filed on 03/06/2023, and 63/447,983, filed on 02/24/2023.
For the purpose of examination, the 02/24/2023 is considered to be the effective filing date.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/20/2026, 04/20/2026, 12/01/2025, and 08/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs are being considered by the examiner. Copies of the PTO-1449 forms with the examiner’s initials are enclosed to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 1 analysis, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or combination of matter).
Claims 1-8 recite a computer-implemented method for analyzing user data and generating a personalized interface, claims 9-16 recite a computer for analyzing user data and generating a personalized interface, and claims 17-20 for analyzing user data and generating a personalized interface. The claims recite a process, machine, and manufacture which fall within the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1-Yes, the claims are statutory).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are reviewed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception by identifying if the claim limitations fall in one of the enumerated abstract idea groupings (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1, A computer-implemented method for analyzing user data and generating a personalized interface, the computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors, a user identity for a user at a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model based upon a user action;
determining, by the one or more processors and based upon at least the user identity, one or more personalization characteristics associated with at least an information retention rate for the user via the generative Al model, wherein:
the information retention rate is indicative of a baseline rate for user understanding of information, and
the one or more personalization characteristics are predicted to affect the user understanding of the information based upon the information retention rate; and
generating, by the one or more processors, a personalized graphical interface for the user via the generative Al model, the personalized graphical interface including one or more visual graphics based upon at least the one or more personalization characteristics.
The above limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., processors, memories, and generative AI). More specifically, the claim recites fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions including a method for analyzing user data to generate a personalized graphical interface for a user based on personalization characteristics of the user determined from the user data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C.2.
The claim recites three essential steps, such as determining a user identity for a user based on a user action using a generative AI model, determining personalization characteristics associated with an information retention rate for the user, and generating a personalized graphical interface for the user wherein the interface includes visual graphics based on the personalization characteristics. The claim describes the concept that is directed to a fundamental economic practice (i.e., hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and commercial interaction (i.e., agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), which is a Method Of Organizing Human Activity.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice or commercial interaction, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed to analyze the user data to generate a personalized graphical interface for a user - fundamental economics practice and business relations). The mere nominal recitation of computer components (i.e., e.g., processors, memories, and a generative AI) do not take the claim out of the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity.
While claim 1 is addressed above, the analysis above can be applied to claim 9 where the processors and memories also serve as mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. Similarly, the non-transitory computer- readable medium of claim 17 is an additional element that serves as mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and does not provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. The mere nominal recitation of computer components does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, these claims also recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1-Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s), or combination of elements, are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. 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.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 9, and 17 include the following additional elements (see underlined below):
Claim 1, A computer-implemented method for analyzing user data and generating a personalized interface, the computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors, … ;
determining, by the one or more processors and based upon at least the user identity, … :
the information retention rate is indicative of a baseline rate for user understanding of information, and
the one or more personalization characteristics are predicted to affect the user understanding of the information based upon the information retention rate; and
generating, by the one or more processors, … , the personalized graphical interface including one or more visual graphics based upon at least the one or more personalization characteristics.
The additional elements are additional details for the existing functional steps of the claims and further narrow the scope of the claims, but do not change the analysis. Further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
The claims further include the additional computer elements, such as a computer system comprising processors, communication unit, and computer-readable medium storing instructions, and an generative AI (see claim 9), all are recited at a high level of generality and the limitations are done by the generically recited computer system (see Applicant’s Specification, paragraphs 47-60 and Figure 1) to perform the determining, determining, and generating steps. The computer system is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of receiving/transmitting communications, processing information, querying the database) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2-No, the claims are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B:
Under the 2019 Revised PEG, Step 2B, the claims are reviewed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
The independent claims (1, 9, and 17) do not include additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the determining, determining, and generating functions as claimed amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 depend on independent claims 1, 9, and 17 respectively and thus include all of the limitations and features of the independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to the same abstract idea as in claims 1, 9, and 17.
Claims 2, 10, and 18 recite the additional elements “retrieving, by the one or more processors and based upon at least the user identity, interaction data between the user and one or more other individuals from one or more publicly accessible sources; wherein determining the one or more personalization characteristics is further based upon at least the interaction data.”. The limitations are additional detailed instructions for retrieving interaction data between the user and other individuals from the publicly accessible sources and determining the personalization characteristics is based upon the interaction data. The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., retrieving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 11, and 19 recite the additional elements “wherein the personalized dialogue output for the user includes a personalized modification to an insurance premium based upon at least one of the user data or the interaction data.”. The limitations are additional detailed instructions for the personalized dialogue output for the user. The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 4, 12, and 20 recite the additional elements “wherein the indication of the user identity includes at least one of (i) a phone call, (ii) a video call, (iii) a text message, or (iv) an email, and the personalized dialogue output for the user includes a summary of one or more predetermined call topics, wherein the summary is personalized to relate to the user.”. The limitations are additional detailed instruction for the indication of the user identity. The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 5 and 13 recite the additional elements “wherein one or more visual graphics include a visual graphic depicting the one or more personalization characteristics and generated by the generative AI model.”. The limitations are additional detailed instructions for the visual graphics. The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 6 and 14 recite the additional elements “wherein the personalized graphical interface for the user includes an audio playing component configured to cause one or more audio cues, wherein the one or more audio cues are based upon at least the one or more personalization characteristics and generated by the generative AI model.”. The limitations are additional detailed instruction for the personalized graphical interface for the user includes audio cues. The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 7 and 15 recite the additional elements “further comprising: retrieving, by the one or more processors and based upon at least the user identity, user data from at least one of one or more publicly accessible sources or one or more privately accessible sources, wherein determining the one or more personalization characteristics is further based on the user data, and the one or more publicly accessible sources includes at least one of (i) social media, (ii) governmental databases, or (iii) online posts by the user.”. The limitations are additional detailed instructions for the publicly accessible sources or privately accessible sources. The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 8 and 16 recite the additional elements “wherein the generative AI model includes at least one of: (i) an AI or machine learning (ML) chatbot or (ii) an AI or ML voice bot.”. The limitations are additional detailed instruction for the action in the generative AI model. The limitations amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, e.g., receiving and processing information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims individually or in combination with others do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The limitations of claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 further define the abstract idea and are generic limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. Thus, the dependent claims do no more than providing additional detailed instructions and administrative requirements for the functional steps already recited in the independent claim and additional details and requirements for managing bill presentment and payment process. Each and every recited combination between the recited computing hardware and the recited computing functions has been considered. No non-generic or non-conventional arrangement is found.
The focus of the claims is on a method for analyzing user data to generate a personalized graphical interface for a user based on personalization characteristics of the user determined from the user data. The claims are not directed to a new type of processor, network, system memory, or query, nor do they provide a method of processing data that improves existing technological processes. The focus of the claims is not on improving computer-related technology, but on an independently abstract idea that uses computers as tools. The claims do not add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claims do no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No inventive concept is found in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea (Step 2B-No, the claims are not significantly more than the abstract idea).
Prior Art 102/103 Rejections
Extensive prior art search has been performed and did not identify any art that teaches each and every elements of the claims at this time.
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The arts are listed in the attached PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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, Christine M. Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
HAI TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/HAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights