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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16, 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 17/817,500, filed on August 04, 2022. In response to Examiner’s Final Rejection dated November 05, 2025, and following the Applicant-Initiated Interview on January 15, 2026, Applicant on January 16, 2026, amended claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15-17, 19 and 25, cancelled claims 26-28 and added new claims 29-31. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-13, 15-19, 21-25 and 29-31 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Applicant is welcomed to request an interview to further discuss the pending rejections.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on January 22, 2026 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 112a rejections of claims 26-28 are hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant canceling claims 26-28.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
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.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 29 and 30 are directed towards a method, claims 10-13, 15, 21, 22 and 31 are directed towards a system and claims 16-19 and 23-25 are directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-13, 15-19, 21-25 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite managing task delegation predictions.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Specifically, retrieving task data corresponding to a task, wherein the task is associated with a user, wherein the task is performable by a representative on behalf of the user; determining a delegation likelihood of the task to the representative for completion, wherein determining includes using a delegation likelihood model that tracks an amount of information for delegating the task by processing task-specific data and user-specific data, wherein determining includes generating a disablement indication that task data includes an insufficient amount of information for delegating the task; updating the delegation likelihood model based on feedback regarding disablement of the graphical user-interface element; and generating a future indication that future task data includes an insufficient amount of information for delegating a future task, wherein generating the future indication uses the updated delegation likelihood model constitutes methods based on managing personal behavior and methods based on evaluations, observation, judgement and/or opinion that can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of a processor, computing device, user interface, graphical-user interface elements and communicating with data sources associated with a task facilitation service do not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 10 and 16 recite certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites communicating with data sources associated with a task facilitation service, presenting, via a user interface, a graphical user-interface element associated with a delegation control for the task, wherein activation of the delegation control causes a computing device to transmit a delegation indication, which is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data and automatically transmitting the disablement indication, wherein, when received by the computing device, the disablement indication causes the computing device to disable the graphical user-interface element, and wherein disabling the graphical user-interface element prevents delegation control for the task at the computing device, thereby avoiding unintentional delegation and conserving computing resources; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claim 1 recites limitations including a processor, computing device, data sources associated with a task facilitation service, user interface and graphical-user interface elements at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and therefore is directed to an abstract idea. The computing device comprising memory storing executable instructions by processors recited in claim 10 and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executed by a processor in claim 16 also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements recited in claims 10 and 16 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including system processors and memory, computing device, data sources associated with a task facilitation service, user interface, graphical-user interface elements, and non-transitory computer-readable medium amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). (see at least Specification [0294]-[0295]; [0333]-[0334]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 29-31 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Dependent claims 3-5, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21, 23 and 29-31 recite computing device limitations that merely apply the instructions of the abstract idea using generic computer components; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, dependent claims 2, 7, 8, 11, 15, 17, 22, 24 and 25 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. Therefore claims 2-5, 7, 8, 11-13, 15, 17-19, 21-25 and 29-31 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hayashida (US 20230064878 A1) – An information processing apparatus includes a processor configured to: prohibit setting performed for automatic execution of a processing instruction causing a series of registered processing steps to be performed, the automatic execution being performed on data stored in a storage area, or prohibit manual execution, of the processing instruction, on the data stored in the storage area.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Patty Munson can be reached on (571)270-5396. 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.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624