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 . Claims 1-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 RCE submission filed on 12/17/25, with claims corresponding to 11/17/25, has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities.
In claim 1, applicant recites “in response to detecting second content associated with an authoring user and the data domain,” where “with an authoring user and” was not present in the 6/18/25 claims. This newly added feature should have been underlined to indicate its insertion via amendment.
The dependent claims are objected to by virtue of their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Under Step 1, the claims fall within the statutory categories (i.e., a system, method, and device). However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claim 1 is:
evaluating first content associated with a data domain to determine a first set of topics for the first content;
determining user knowledge levels of a set of users for the first set of topics based on an amount of content:
created by the set of users; and
including the first set of topics;
maintaining an index comprising the first set of topics, the user knowledge levels, and users associated with the user knowledge levels, wherein the index is configured to enable real-time lookup operations during content authoring by storing user-topic-knowledge level associations optimized for pattern matching queries;
determining a set of collaboration circles for users within the data domain based on user activity of the users, wherein the user activity comprises at least one of:
a total number of user communications of the users;
a length of user communications of the users; or
a topic of user communications of the users;
in response to detecting second content associated with an authoring user and the data domain:
determining a second set of topics for the second content; and
identifying the users within the data domain having knowledge on the second set of topics by comparing the second set of topics to the first set of topics in the index, wherein the index correlates the users within the data domain having knowledge on the second set of topics to one or more of the first set of topics in the index;
ranking the users having knowledge on the second set of topics based at least on the set of collaboration circles, wherein ranking the users comprises:
determining, from the users within the data domain having knowledge on the second set of topics, a set of users within a collaboration circle of the authoring user; and
generating a modified set of users having knowledge on the second set of topics by removing the set of users within the collaboration circle of the authoring user from the users within the data domain having knowledge on the second set of topics; and
providing, to the modified set of users having knowledge on the second set of topics, a notification that the second content is currently being authored, the notification comprising the second set of topics and a snapshot of at least a portion of the second content currently being authored and relating to the second set of topics.
The abstract idea of claim 15 is:
evaluating first content associated with a data domain to determine a first topic for the first content;
determining user knowledge levels on the first topic for members of the data domain based on a type of user activity the members have engaged in regarding the first topic;
storing in an index the first topic, the user knowledge levels on the first topic, and a set of members from the members of the data domain that are knowledgeable about the first topic;
determining a set of collaboration circles for the members of the data domain;
detecting second content associated with the data domain, wherein the second content is associated with the first topic and is authored by an authoring user;
identifying in the index the set of members that are knowledgeable about the first topic;
ranking each member of the set of members, wherein the ranking comprises:
determining a set of members within a collaboration circle of the authoring user; and
generating a modified set of members having knowledge about the first topic by removing the set of members within the collaboration circle of the authoring user from the set of members that are knowledgeable about the first topic; and
providing, in real-time during authoring of the second content, a notification of the modified set of members to the authoring user based on the ranking.
The abstract idea of claim 20 is:
determining user knowledge levels on a first topic based on at least one of:
a number of other users with whom a user has communicated about the first topic; or
an amount of time over which the user has communicated about the first topic;
detecting content associated with a data domain, wherein at least a portion of the content is related to the first topic and is authored by an authoring user;
identifying a set of users that are knowledgeable about the first topic, wherein the identifying includes accessing a data store comprising the set of users and the user knowledge levels on the first topic;
ranking the set of users based on respective knowledge of the set of users about the first topic, wherein ranking the set of users comprises:
determining a set of users within a collaboration circle of the authoring user; and
generating a modified set of users that are knowledgeable about the first topic by removing the set of users within the collaboration circle of the authoring user from the set of users that are knowledgeable about the first topic; and
providing, in real-time during authoring of the content, a notification of the content to a user in the modified set of users based on the ranking and a determination that the user has responded to one or more previously received notifications indicating the user has been identified as knowledgeable about one or more topics related to detected content.
The abstract idea steps italicized above relate to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as the claims manage personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The managed relationships include identifying levels of expertise with respect to topics determined from content, identifying and ranking users in regard to their expertise in a given topic, and notifying users that they have knowledge in a set of topics. This is an activity that a project team leader routinely performs in building a diverse team of people in address the pertinent project subject matter. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
The claims recites the following additional elements: processor; memory; device; wherein the notification comprises an interactive interface enabling the modified set of members to view at least a portion of the second content being authored.
These elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the concept of identifying levels of expertise with respect to topic determined from content, identifying and ranking users in regard to their expertise in the given topic and notifying users that they have knowledge in a set of topics using generic computer components. See applicant’s specification at [0062]: “In addition, embodiments of the disclosure may be practiced within a general-purpose computer or in any other circuits or systems.”
Further, the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing device. At best, applicant has described a results-oriented process, which also doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two pertaining to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more to the abstract idea. The dependent claims further recite a method of organizing human activity because they recite generically using machine learning to process content (claims 3, 4, 5, 6), describing the data domain (claim 2), describing knowledge levels (claim 7), describing how collaboration circles are determined (claims 8 and 9), detecting second content, (claims 10 and 16), describing how sets of topics are compared (claim 11), describing ranking (claims 12, 13, 17 and 18), and contents of a notification (claims 14 and 19). Similar to the independent claims, the dependent claims generally “apply” the concept of identifying levels of expertise with respect to topic determined from content, identifying and ranking users in regard to their expertise in the given topic and notifying users that they have knowledge in a set of topics. Even when viewed in combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2A1/2A2/2B, for reasons similar to those discussed above regarding claims 1, 15 and 20.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks, filed 11/17/25, have been fully considered. Examiner’s response follows, with applicant’s headings and page numbers used for consistency.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant offers remarks regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on pages 9-10. These remarks can be summarized as follows:
The claims do not recite an abstract idea;
Even if an abstract idea is recited, the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or result in an improvement to technology.
While well taken, examiner remains unpersuaded. The abstract idea encompasses managing relationships, including identifying levels of expertise with respect to topics determined from content, identifying and ranking users in regard to their expertise in a given topic, and notifying users that they have knowledge in a set of topics. This is an activity that a project team leader routinely performs in building a diverse team of people in address the pertinent project subject matter.
The additional elements – e.g., processor; memory; device; wherein the notification comprises an interactive interface enabling the modified set of members to view at least a portion of the second content being authored – are doing no more than facilitating the tasks of said abstract idea. At best, applicant has described a results-oriented process, which also doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Examiner directs applicant to MPEP 2106.05(f) for further discussion.
Accordingly, examiner maintains the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, applicant’s amendments and clarifying remarks are persuasive. These rejections are withdrawn. In an updated search, examiner identified the following references, which, while generally relevant to the field of endeavor, stop short of the specificity required by the claims:
US 20120317102, which teaches in the Abstract: In a computerized social network, expert and user chat sessions are stored and rated probabilistically. Later user requests for information are met with an expert ranking, based on a balance of similarities between expert profile and questions; similarity between expert profile and prior chat sessions, and dynamically updated chat session ratings. New sessions can be rated automatically with reference to keywords distilled from past sessions responsive to user ratings--and based on session length.
US 20130007009, which teaches in the Abstract: Automatically tagging individual users for identifying expertise or other relevant skills associated with the individual users based on various sources of information used or interacted with by the users is provided. After expertise tags are established for an individual user, the expertise tagging and other information about the user's profile and computing activities may be used for automatically suggesting a user for membership in one or more other project groups or workspaces that may be a good fit for the user's expertise or other relevant skills.
US 20130325779, which teaches in the Abstract: Content recommendations customized to a user's knowledge are provided. The user's knowledge is assessed from the user's activity history and the expertise of the user regarding each of the various topics relative to a cohort group is determined. Based on the user's score, the user can be classified into various competency levels ranging from a novice to an expert in each topic. Content items for improving the user's scores in the various topics can be forwarded based on the user's classification and activity history. If the user is recognized as an expert in a particular topic, questions from other users regarding the particular topic can be directed to the user for the responses.
Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1-20 are withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
“A social network-based system for supporting interactive collaboration in knowledge sharing over peer-to-peer network” (NPL attached), which teaches in the Abstract: Knowledge sharing enables people in virtual communities to access relevant knowledge (explicit or tacit) from broader scope of resources. The performance in such environments is fundamentally based on how effectively the explicit and tacit knowledge can be shared across people, and how efficiently the created knowledge can be organized and disseminated to enrich digital content. This study will address how to apply social network-based system to support interactive collaboration in knowledge sharing over peer-to-peer networks.
US 20030101083, which teaches in the Abstract: A method for providing expert information from a pool of experts using a server system coupled to a centralized database and at least one client system is provided. The database stores expert information relating to each expert within the pool of experts. The method includes displaying information on the client system identifying alternative paths for assistance to the user, receiving a request from the client system based on an alternative path selected by the user, accessing a database within the server system comprising a pool of experts, cross-referencing user information with expert information, displaying expert information including expert availability information on the client system through an applet downloaded from the server system when a user calls upon an expert to seek assistance, and contacting the expert based on user selected expert information inputted into the client system.
US 6938068, which teaches in the Abstract: A question management system for an expert advice web site maintains a database of experts in different subject matter categories. Ranking scores associated with each expert are continually updated based on the timeliness of answers provided by the experts and answer rating feedback received from the question poser. According to another aspect of the invention, method and computer readable medium is disclosed for carrying out the above method.
US 20140101085, which teaches in the Abstract: A method including generating a global topic model based on a set of data that is updated according to an activity of each user of a plurality of users, the global topic model including a topic representation for a topic, generating a plurality of user models, each user model being generated based on the activity of a respective user, generating an expertise model for the topic based on the activity of at least one user of the plurality of users, the expertise model for the topic setting a target level of knowledge for a first user of the plurality of users, comparing a user model of the first user with the expertise model for the topic, the comparing being performed by a processor of a computer system, and recommending an activity associated with the set of data to the first user based on the comparison.
References cited in the Response to Arguments section above can be found on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 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, SARAH MONFELDT can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629