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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26, 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 17/817,518, filed on August 04, 2022. In response to Examiner’s Final Rejection dated December 22, 2025, Applicant on January 26, 2026, amended claims 1, 9 and 15. Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-16 and 18-22 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Examiner welcomes Applicant to schedule an interview to discuss the pending rejections.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on January 23, 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The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-16 and 18-22 are hereby withdrawn in light of Applicants amendments to claims 1, 9 and 15.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed January 26, 2026 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks regarding the pending rejections will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed January 26, 2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states that claim 1 recites an improvement to the computing capabilities: "transmitting, by the web server, the control enablement indication, wherein, when the control enablement indication is received by a user computing device associated with the user, the user computing device dynamically modifies an initial graphical user interface to activate the control enablement indication while simultaneously disabling graphical user interface elements corresponding to other tasks, and wherein the dynamic modification improves functionality of the initial user interface." (Emphasis Added). Further, paragraphs [0207] and [0211] clearly provide that, to the person ordinarily skilled in the art, the particular and practical application of the dynamic interface is directed to a technical improvement that distinguishes over the conventional interfaces, which is similar to the claims of DDR Holdings and BASCOM that were held as patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 101 is therefore respectfully requested.
In response Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes DDR Holdings presents an invention that is rooted in computer technology. Specifically, the court found when a third party's advertisement hyperlink was selected by a user on a host's web page, the system would automatically identify the host web page, retrieve corresponding "look and feel" information from storage for the host page and generate a hybrid web page including the merchant information from the third-party web page with the "look and feel" elements of the host's website. This is different from conventional Internet hyperlink operations which would redirect a user to the third-party page away from the host's web page when the hyperlink is activated and therefore added a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. BASCOM was found eligible based on considerations relevant to Part 2B (does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea) of the two-part framework outlined in MPEP § 2106; where claim 1 "carve[s] out a specific location for the filtering system (a remote ISP server) and require the filtering system to give users the ability to customize filtering for their individual network accounts". In contrast, the amended claims do not recite similar features. Examiner finds Applicant’s claim is not analogous to the improvements regarding the hybrid web page in DDR Holdings nor the network customization in BASCOM. Examiner finds the additional elements recited in the claims do not perform any unconventional functions that can be considered “significantly more” than the judicial exception. The enabling and disabling of graphical user interface elements corresponding to tasks is a computer function that apply the instructions of the abstract idea. Examiner finds the claimed graphical user interface is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer); see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, Examiner maintains the claims recite addition elements used as tools to perform the instructions of the abstract idea without disclosing limitations that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do these elements provide meaningful limitations that transforms the judicial exception into significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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, 2 and 4-8 are directed towards a method, claims 9, 10, 12-14 and 21 are directed towards a computing device and claims 15, 17, 18-20 and 22 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, 2, 4-10, 12-16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite enabling task delegation to users.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, receiving task data, wherein the task data identifies a task associated with a user; accessing a delegation likelihood model that is associated with delegation of one or more tasks, wherein the delegation likelihood model determines a likelihood that the user will delegate the task; and facilitating a task facilitation service to delegate the task constitutes methods of evaluations, observation, judgement and opinion that can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper and methods based on managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). The recitation of a web server, user computing device and graphical user-interface does not take the claim out of the mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 9 and 15 recites mental processes and certain method of organizing human activity 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 transmitting, by the web server, the control enablement indication, wherein, when the control enablement indication is received by a user computing device associated with the user, the user computing device dynamically modifies an initial graphical user interface to activate the control enablement indication while simultaneously disabling graphical user interface elements corresponding to other tasks; and detecting, by the web server, an activation of a task delegation control based on one or more user interactions with the modified graphical user interface, which are considered to be limitations of insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 1 also recites a web server, user computing device, graphical user-interface element and graphical user-interface 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). Additionally, claim 1 recites wherein the dynamic modification improves functionality of the initial user interface, which recite additional elements found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements 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 instructions executable by one or more processors recited in claim 9 and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor in claim 15 also amounts 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 9 and 15 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 a web server, computing device comprising memory storing instructions executable by one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor 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 PG-Pub Specification [0275]; [0297]-[0299]; ). 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 4, 12 and 18 recites displaying a visual indicator in a user interface, which is considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-14, 16 and 18-22 recite additional 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; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-14, 16 and 18-22 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. Therefore claims 2-8, 10-14 and 16-22 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.
Mathew et al. (US 20240289876 A1) – The disclosed embodiments include computer-implemented systems, apparatuses, and processes that automatically generate and provision for presenting actionable icons on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer device. The method includes providing electronic data transfers and attributes to a predictive machine learning model to predict future data transfers and data transfer trends; dynamically determining prior factors historically influencing data transfers and thereby a set of factors likely to influence the predicted future data transfers; automatically triggering a digital nudge to the computer device, across a communications network, to automatically present the predicted future data transfers and the set of factors as one or more interactive visual insight icons on the graphical user interface; and, responsive to a determination of engagement with the visual insight icons, triggering generating one or more action icons on the graphical user interface, customized to adjusting the predicted future data transfers.
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