DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the initial filing of application #19/423956 on 12/17/2025.
3. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/17/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Representative claim 1, recites a computer-implemented method, which is a statutory class, comprising:
receiving, from a computing device, a request to evaluate a metric indicating a
qualitative measurement of a user experience with a graphical user interface (GUI);
identifying a first display option for the GUI;
identifying a second display option for the GUI;
generating, for the first display option, a first measurement for the metric;
generating, for the second display option, a second measurement for the metric;
performing a first comparison between the first measurement for the metric and
the second measurement for the metric;
based at least in part on the first comparison, generating a first determination
that the second display option improves the metric over the first display option by greater than a threshold;
generating a first insight regarding the user experience based at least in part on
the first determination; and
generating an instruction that, when executed by the computing device, modifies the GUI based at least in part on the first insight.
The steps of,
receiving, from a computing device, a request to evaluate a metric indicating a
qualitative measurement of a user experience with a graphical user interface (GUI);
identifying a first display option for the GUI;
identifying a second display option for the GUI;
generating, for the first display option, a first measurement for the metric;
generating, for the second display option, a second measurement for the metric;
performing a first comparison between the first measurement for the metric and
the second measurement for the metric;
based at least in part on the first comparison, generating a first determination
that the second display option improves the metric over the first display option by greater than a threshold;
generating a first insight regarding the user experience based at least in part on
the first determination; and
generating an instruction that, when executed by the computing device, modifies the GUI based at least in part on the first insight.
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a method for recommending insights to optimize an experience. The above identified method steps recite commercial interactions such as sales activities and/or tailored personalized marketing relating to improving rank and insights based on preconfigured criteria.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction such as tailored personalized marketing, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Representative claim 8,
The system comprising
identify a first display option for a graphical user interface (GUI), wherein the first display option for the GUI is associated with a first value for a metric that indicates a qualitative measurement of a user experience with the GUI;
identify a second display option for the GUI, wherein the second display option for the GUI is associated with a second value for the metric that indicates a qualitative measurement of the user experience with the GUI;
perform a first comparison between the first value for the metric and the second value for the metric;
based at least in part on the first comparison, generate a first determination that the second display option improves the metric over the first display option; and
generate a first insight into the user experience with the GUI based at least in part on the first determination.
The steps of:
identify a first display option for a graphical user interface (GUI), wherein the first display option for the GUI is associated with a first value for a metric that indicates a qualitative measurement of a user experience with the GUI;
identify a second display option for the GUI, wherein the second display option for the GUI is associated with a second value for the metric that indicates a qualitative measurement of the user experience with the GUI;
perform a first comparison between the first value for the metric and the second value for the metric;
based at least in part on the first comparison, generate a first determination that the second display option improves the metric over the first display option; and
generate a first insight into the user experience with the GUI based at least in part on the first determination,
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a method for recommending insights to optimize an experience. The above identified method steps recite commercial interactions such as sales activities and/or tailored personalized marketing relating to improving rank and insights based on preconfigured criteria.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction such as tailored personalized marketing, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Representative claim 15:
The apparatus causing the computer to at least:
identify (i) a first display option of a plurality of display options for a user interface including a plurality of interface elements, and (ii) a metric to be evaluated with
respect to the user interface;
identify a second display option of the plurality of display options for the user
interface;
generate a baseline measurement for the metric, wherein the baseline measurement comprises a mean of sampled data from a stored data set corresponding to the first display option;
generate a second measurement for the metric, wherein the second measurement comprises a mean of sampled data from a stored data set corresponding to the
second display option;
perform a first comparison between the baseline measurement for the metric
and the second measurement for the metric;
based at least in part on the first comparison, generate a first determination that
the second display option improves the metric over the first display option by greater than a threshold; and
generate a first insight regarding the user interface and the metric based at least
in part on the first determination.
The steps of:
identify (i) a first display option of a plurality of display options for a user interface including a plurality of interface elements, and (ii) a metric to be evaluated with
respect to the user interface;
identify a second display option of the plurality of display options for the user
interface;
generate a baseline measurement for the metric, wherein the baseline measurement comprises a mean of sampled data from a stored data set corresponding to the first display option;
generate a second measurement for the metric, wherein the second measurement comprises a mean of sampled data from a stored data set corresponding to the
second display option;
perform a first comparison between the baseline measurement for the metric
and the second measurement for the metric;
based at least in part on the first comparison, generate a first determination that
the second display option improves the metric over the first display option by greater than a threshold; and
generate a first insight regarding the user interface and the metric based at least
in part on the first determination,
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a method for recommending insights to optimize an experience. The above identified method steps recite commercial interactions such as sales activities and/or tailored personalized marketing relating to improving rank and insights based on preconfigured criteria.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction such as tailored personalized marketing, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of computing device, a processor, a memory and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The computing device, a processor, a memory and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. 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.
The claims do not include additional elements that are efficient 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 computing device, a processor, a memory and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to perform the steps of recommending insights to optimize an experience amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. The additional elements are similar to the additional elements found by the courts to be mere instructions to apply an exception because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery to perform an existing process such as: a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 US 208, 223: Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F. 3d 1306, 1334); generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the menu to the second location as performed by generic computer components (Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44); and
requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71). (See MPEP 2106.05(f) for additional information and citations). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in claims 1, 8 and 15. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reason given above.
Claims 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
9. With respect to the obviousness rejection:
10. The Examiner notes the following references:
11. Matos et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0036930) talks about the present invention relates in general to on-line transportation reservation processing and, in particular, to a system and method for identifying and purchasing travel packages on-line. In one embodiment, package components are retrieved by a package server in response to a query from a consumer. A best package component is identified from the retrieved package components. Then a listing of packages matching the best package component is depicted for the consumer with real-time prices to the consumer. In another embodiment of the present invention, real-time prices corresponding to travel packages are related to published fares for package components. The relationship is calculated to maximize the real-time price relative to the price for published fares for the travel components. In still another embodiment of the present invention, travel packages are cross-sold to consumers when they are seeking to purchase a travel component that may be included in a travel package (see at least the Abstract)
12. Dutta et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0050865) talks about providing customers with a list of links to stores and service providers in a specified geographic area (see at least paragraph 0004).
13. Walker et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,899,710) talks about determination and presentation of package offers in response to an indication of a customer's interest in a primary product. A retailer may offer products for sale in an on-line retail environment, such as via a web-site, or in a physical retail environment. In response to an indication of interest in a primary product by a customer, a package offer is presented to the customer. A package offer is an offer for sale by a retailer of a package of products at a package price. The package of products typically comprises the primary product and at least one secondary product. The primary product and the at least one secondary product each have a corresponding retail price. A package price is determined for the package, which is typically less than the sum of the corresponding retail prices of the primary product and the at least one secondary product. In one embodiment of the present invention, the determination of the package price and the at least one secondary product included in the package is based on the profit margin of at least one of the primary product and the at least one secondary product (see at least Summary of the invention, paragraph 10).
14. Wallace et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,600805) talks about a user of a personal computing device may identify multiple travel items of interest displayed for purchase by a network-based travel service. However, the user may not desire to purchase the travel items in a single purchase. Upon making a travel purchase that includes a first travel item that does not include a second travel item corresponding to the first travel item, the user may employ the network travel package service to search for second travel items corresponding to the first travel item, select from discounted travel packages including the first travel item and second travel items returned from the search, and purchase a discounted travel package. Beneficially, multiple travel items may be purchased separately while obtaining a package discount as compared to the stand-alone price of the travel items (see at least the Abstract).
15. Badino et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0042864) talks about an alternative way that buyers find properties is through searching one of the common web search portals such as Zillow or Trulia. In this scenario, a buyer enters search criteria for properties and then views results of the search that show properties available within the respective portal's database that meet the buyer's search criteria. Following this, the buyer may ask their listing agent to set up showings the seller's agent, or the buyer may contact the seller's agent directly. Like the first case, collaboration primarily occurs in-person, via phone calls, texts, and emails. (see at least paragraph 0005).
16. White et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,768,840) talks about an automated method for search and generation of relevant search results includes: receiving both discrete parameters and freeform search characters input by a user; simultaneously searching a first freeform entry source and a second freeform entry source to obtain corresponding first and second suggested freeform entries; ranking the first suggested freeform entries according to first rules of relevancy to the user, and generating first ranked suggested freeform entries; ranking the second suggested freeform entries according to second rules of relevancy to the user, and generating second ranked suggested freeform entries; combining the first and second ranked freeform entries into a combined set of suggested freeform entries, and ranking the combined set of suggested freeform entries according to combined rules of relevancy to the user, and generating combined ranked suggested freeform entries; and transmitting the combined ranked suggested freeform entries to the user for selection of a desired type ahead entry (see at least the Abstract).
17. The prior art mentioned above failed to teach or suggest the combination of the elements of the independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARILYN G MACASIANO whose telephone number is (571)270-5205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12:00-9:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, llana Spar can be reached at 571)270-7537. 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.
/MARILYN G MACASIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622 09/05/2026
Prosecution Insights