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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 22nd of July 2026.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 were amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 07/23/2026 has been considered. Initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Prior Arts Search
This application is a continuation of a previously allowed patent. A new search was conducted on the broadened claims; however, no relevant prior art was identified to support rejections under §102 and §103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22nd of July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-20, Applicant argues “…Claim 1 is patent eligible because it is not directed to an abstract idea.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the rejection, these limitations amount to managing personal behavior or interactions between people and evaluating information to make a decision, which fall within recognized abstract idea groupings such as certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, the claims were directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-20, Applicant argues “…Claim 1 recites additional elements which integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the network communication interface, processors, memory, computing device, and generated communications merely provide computer tools for carrying out the abstract process. Although the claim customizes the type, timing, a content of communications based on a user’s prior response in order to increase responsiveness, this improves the effectiveness of the underlying communications or user management process rather than the functioning of the computer, network, or another technology or technical field. Thus, the computing components merely automate the abstract idea of evaluating a person’s prior responsiveness and adjusting future communications accordingly, rather than imposing a meaningful technological limitation on the abstract idea. Similarly, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The recited network interface, processors, memory, and communication functions appear to perform their ordinary computer functions of receiving, processing, and communicating information. Moreover, determining a response metric and customizing subsequent communications based on that metric are themselves part of the abstract decision making process and therefore cannot supply the inventive concept merely because they are performed by a computer. Viewed individually and as an ordered combination, the additional computer elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer technology and do not provide a technological improvement, particular transformation, or other meaningful limitation sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-20, Applicant argues “…Applicant further submits that the Office Action’s Step 2B analysis contains legal error.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the generic computer components identified by the examiner in the rejection are commonly known and routinely used computer elements that would have been well understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Secondly, the rejection identifies several court decisions recognizing comparable computer components and functions (e.g., receiving/transmitting data) as generic or conventional. More specifically, Alice Corps v. CLS Bank International, Electric Power Group, LLC. v. Alstom S.A., and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google inc. provide examples in which courts determined that generic computer components performing ordinary functions, such as receiving, processing, storing, and transmitting information, do not supply an inventive concept. Accordingly, the cited decisions provide support for the examiner’s determination that the recited processor, memory, network interface, computing device, and network communications are conventional computer elements that do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Lastly, in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 105 (Fed. Cir. 2025), the court held that claims were patent ineligible where they essentially applied generic machine learning techniques to a new data environment, without claiming an improvement to the machine learning technology itself.
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 abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
First of all, claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter. For claim 1, the claim recites an abstract idea of
“…communicating, over one or more networks, with a computing device of a user to determine incident data for a claim, the incident data identifying an injury to the user resulting from a claim event; executing one or more injury assistance models, based at least in part on the incident data, to determine an individualized set of actions to perform to facilitate the user during a period in which the user is healing from the injury; performing the set of actions during the period, including performing point-in-time check-ins with the user by generating one or more communications for the user regarding one or more medical appointments; and wherein generating the one or more communications includes customizing a communication type, a timing, and a content of each of the one or more communications based at least in part on a response metric determined from a response of the user to one or more prior communications, to increase responsiveness of the user.” This is an abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, since it recites managing personal behavior or interactions, namely providing individualized injury assistance to users involved in injury events by determining appropriate actions, communicating with the user, evaluating the user’s response, and adjusting subsequent communication. Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components/processes (e.g., network communication interface, processors, memory, computing system, networks). “We conclude that claim 1 is “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke[s] generic processes and machinery” rather than “a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology.” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1371
This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components/processes (e.g., network communication interface, processors, memory, computing system, networks) to receive/transmit data (extra-solution activities) and perform the abstract idea mentioned above. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). The additional elements (e.g., network communication interface, processors, memory, computing system, networks) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements 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 elements - (e.g., network communication interface, processors, memory, computing system, networks) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Again, the insignificant extra-solution activities mentioned above were re-evaluated in step 2B. The limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the courts found sending/receiving of data to be well understood, routine, and conventional activities. (See at least MPEP 2016.05(g): CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3D 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857; Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Thus again, claims were not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 11 and 20.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claim 2 and 12, the recited limitation of these claims merely further defined the generic computer step of “training” using information from historical claims involving similar incidents or injuries. The limitation of these claims fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic computing steps discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of these dependent claims fails to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 3 and 13, the recited limitation of these claims merely further defined the generic computer step of “training” using settlement amounts or information for the claims involving similar incidents or injuries. The limitation of these claims fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic computing steps discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitation of these dependent claims fails to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 4 and 14, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further added, “…performing the set of actions includes automatically scheduling the one or more medical appointments on behalf of the user.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 5 and 15, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further added, “…automatically verifying the user attended a scheduled appointment, by matching location data obtained from a computing device of the user with a physical location of the scheduled appointment.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 6 and 16, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further added, “…automatically verifying the user attended a scheduled appointment by accessing medical data of the user.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 7 and 17, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further added, “…wherein generating one or more communications for the user regarding one or more medical appointments includes receiving an update on the injury from the user, and accessing medical data of the user following one or more medical appointments to verify the update provided by the user.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 8, 9, and 18, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further added, “…providing the user with a claim hub to further facilitate the user; wherein generating the one or more communications is provided through the claim hub; and wherein the one or more communications are generated through a chat interface of the claim hub.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 10 and 19, the recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These claims further added, “…wherein the response metric determined from the response of the user to one or more prior communications is a sentiment, determined by performing sentiment analysis on one or more of the prior communications of the user.” The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. These dependent claims, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
Conclusion
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3092. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 571-272-3955. 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.
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696 08/13/2026
Prosecution Insights