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
This non-final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication (RCE) received on January 29, 2026, wherein claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-22 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 29, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are geared towards the newly amended claims with newly added limitations. The new amended claims and the newly added limitations to the amended claims are considered for the first time in the rejection below and detailed in the rejection below.
35 USC §101 discussion:
The amendment to the claims do not help the claims overcome the §101 rejection. The core claimed (with amendments) concepts is still an abstract idea as the independent claims (1, 11) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-10, 12-17, 19-22) still recite obtaining/extracting/receiving information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – project information, words/terms, historical information, etc.,), data analysis/evaluations and manipulation to determine more abstract information/data, and determined more data/information to use in suggestions and recommendation on resources, and providing information/data for decision-making and assignments (in a project environment assigning resources). Applicant’s newly added terms/limitations (“training” (by loading/putting abstract information on a computer), generating training set, natural language processing model, database) as just using generic/general-purpose known machine-learning/AI elements – the actual claimed concepts are abstract and can be done by humans without the generic/general-purpose known machine-learning/AI elements and the other generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/ devices, etc. The independent and dependent claims cover methods of organizing human activity (commercial interactions, managing interactions, and personal behaviors (business relations and interactions in project environment and assigning resources to people and assessing people’s expertise and skills to make resource decisions)). Adding the terms/elements of, for example, “training” (by loading/putting abstract information on a computer), “generating training set,” “natural language processing model,” “database,” etc., is just adding known and generic/general-purpose computers and computing/technical elements/components/etc., which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general-purpose computer functions. The generic/general-purpose computers and computing elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above stated abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/ devices, etc. The additional elements (for example (including newly added elements), systems, devices, server, natural language processing, graphical user interfaces, applications (generally stated software), transmitting/communicating/outputting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interface mechanisms, virtual workspace (computer/computing), devices, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-10); virtual workspace infrastructure (computer, network, system), applications (generic software stated – no details), transmitting/computing using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interface mechanisms, virtual workspace (computer/computing), devices, etc., (in independent claim 11 and its dependent claims 12-20)) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. Additionally, claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See detailed rejection below.
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 1-7, 9-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, claims 1-7, 9-10, and 22 are directed to a system (i.e. machine) and claims 11-17, 19-20, and 21 are directed to a method (i.e., process). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claims (1, 11) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-10, 12-17, 19-22) recites obtaining/extracting/receiving information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – project information, words/terms, historical information, etc.,), data analysis/evaluations and manipulation to determine more abstract information/data, and determined more data/information to use in suggestions and recommendation on resources, and providing information/data for decision-making and assignments (in a project environment assigning resources). The limitations of the independent claims (1, 11) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-10, 12-17, 19-22), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (commercial interactions, managing interactions, and personal behaviors (business relations and interactions in project environment and assigning resources to people and assessing people’s expertise and skills to make resource decisions)). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as 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 scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of old/well-known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms (see listing below), in the context of the independent claims (1, 11) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-10, 12-17, 19-22), the independent claims and dependent claims encompass the above stated abstract idea (organizing human activity (commercial interactions, managing interactions, and personal behaviors (business relations and interactions in project environment and assigning resources to people and assessing people’s expertise and skills to make resource decisions))). The old/well-known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations used in the claims (and in the specification) by the Applicant are in the following list/listing (additional elements):
systems, devices, server, training (by loading/putting abstract information on a computer), generating training set, natural language processing model, database, natural language processing, graphical user interfaces, applications (generally stated software), transmitting/communicating/outputting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interface mechanisms, virtual workspace (computer/computing), devices, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 22);
virtual workspace infrastructure (computer, network, system), applications (generic software stated – no details), training (by loading/putting abstract information on a computer), generating training set, natural language processing model, database, transmitting/computing using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interface mechanisms, virtual workspace (computer/computing), devices, etc., (in independent claim 11 and its dependent claims 12-17, 19-21).
(hereinafter the above list/listing will be referred to as “generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above)” or “additional elements (see list/listing above)” in the rest of the §101 rejection – i.e. whenever “generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above)” or “additional elements (see list/listing above)” is used/stated in the rest of the §101 rejection it is referring to and incorporates the above list/listing).
As shown above, the independent claims (1, 11) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-10, 12-17, 19-22) and specification recite generic/general-purpose computers and computing/technical elements/components/etc., which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general-purpose computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The generic/general-purpose computers and computing elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above stated abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/ devices, etc. The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (as shown above) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claims (1, 11) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-10, 12-17, 19-22) do not include additional elements (see list/listing above) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The independent claims (1, 11) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-10, 12-17, 19-22) recite using known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, figs. 1, 10-11 and also ¶¶ 0024 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,], 0035-0047 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The independent claims (1, 11) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-10, 12-17, 19-22) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements or combination of elements in the independent claims (1, 11) and dependent claims (2-7, 9-10, 12-17, 19-22) other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims (2-7, 9-10, 12-17, 19-22) further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The above rejection includes and details the discussion of dependent claims (2-10, 12-20) and the above rejection applies to all the dependent claim limitations. In summary (details discussed above), the dependent claims further state using obtained data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature), data analysis/manipulation to determine more data/information (obtaining more resultant abstract information/data), and providing this determined data/information for further analysis and decision making in managing projects and workers and assigning resources. The dependent claims (as also stated above and repeated here) are directed towards organizing human activities (commercial interactions, managing interactions, and personal behaviors (business relations and interactions in project environment and assigning resources to people and assessing people’s expertise and skills to make resource decisions)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computers and computing elements/components/etc., (for example (including newly added elements), systems, devices, server, training (by loading/putting abstract information on a computer), generating training set, natural language processing model, database, natural language processing, graphical user interfaces, applications (generally stated software), transmitting/communicating/outputting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interface mechanisms, virtual workspace (computer/computing), devices, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 22); virtual workspace infrastructure (computer, network, system), applications (generic software stated – no details), training (by loading/putting abstract information on a computer), generating training set, natural language processing model, database, transmitting/computing using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interface mechanisms, virtual workspace (computer/computing), devices, etc., (in independent claim 11 and its dependent claims 12-17, 19-21)) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general-purpose computer/computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04 and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The dependent claims also merely recites post-solution/extra-solution activities (with generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing components/devices/etc.,). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements. Also, the dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the juridical exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself.
Prior art discussion (not a prior art rejection – but remains rejected under §101 above)
As per the independent claims 1 and 11, the closet prior art are Hancock et al., (US 2019/0066030), Jalaluddin et al., (US 2022/0171930), and Cases et al., (US 7987110 B2).
However, neither Hancock nor Jalaluddin nor Cases (the closet prior art) specifically disclose, in combination, the limitations of evaluating, by the resource generation service and using a natural language processing model trained by loading an existing data set, loading stop vocabulary, segmenting a document in the data set, filtering out noise words according to the stop list to generate a training set, and training the natural language processing model based on the training set…in response to detecting a threshold number of new keywords associated with the at least one project, increasing the expertise level of the user to a next expertise level…tracks which resources are utilized by system users at different expertise levels, of a group of different users having a same common expertise level as the user. The specific ordered combination of the claim elements in the independent claims cannot be found in the prior art (including art cited in PTO-892) and can only be found in Applicants’ Specification. The prior art of record (including art cite on PTO-892) does not teach or suggest (the reference individually or in combination) Applicant’s current independent claims as a whole (it is the entire claimed concept described by the limitations collectively coming together that is not rejected under prior art (the core concept is shown in the claim as a whole — limitations organized in the specific form and coming together collectively to form the concept)). Furthermore, any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all of the claim elements would not be obvious and would result in impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
As per the dependent claims, these claims depend on the independent claims above and incorporate the limitations thereof, and are therefore not rejected under prior art for at least the same rationale as applied to the independent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Note that all the claims are still rejected under §101 rejection and are therefore not allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the pertinent prior art is as follows:
English et al., (US 2018/0032600): Provides semantic distance calculation. The method can involve ingesting a plurality of documents; extracting a set of subjects from the plurality of documents using latent dirichlet allocation; for each document in the plurality of documents, generating a classification list comprising a ranking of the one or more subjects based on the relevance of each subject to the document; for each classification list, calculating the semantic distance between each subject present on the classification list; aggregating the plurality of classification lists; and creating a distance matrix containing the relative semantic distances between each member of the set of subjects.
Cicio, JR (US 2014/0039956): Relates to systems and methods for skill collaboration. More specifically, some embodiments of the present invention relate to a skills collaboration project environment that satisfies staffing needs.
Duffy et al., (US 8805713): Illustrates an automated task delegation and project management system that tracks user profiles and project profiles, which include information about the interests and skills each user in the system possesses as well as the skills that are required by each project in the system and the characteristics of each project.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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.
/Gurkanwaljit Singh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625