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 .
Status of Claims
This action is a Final action on the merits in response to the communications filed on 01/23/2026.
Applicant has amended claims 1 – 2, 4 – 5, 8 – 9, 11 – 12, 15 – 16, and 18 – 19;
Claims 7, 14, and 21 have been cancelled;
Claims 22 – 24 are new claims;
Claims 1 – 6, 8 – 13, 15 – 20, and 22 - 24 are pending in this application.
Response to Remarks
Examiner’s Response to Claim Rejections
Response to Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Examiner’s Response to Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant argues claims 1 – 2, 4 – 5, 8 – 9, 11 – 12, 15 – 16, and 18 – 19 are amended, and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claim 1 is directed to a method, which is statutory category. However, Applicant’s claim 1 recites the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity; and claim 1 merely recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and the claim observes completed tasks by the human that the proposals are based on as well as observes human interactions with the computer to provide feedback. Claim 1 also recites mathematical concepts, where the claim involves mathematical relationships, that trains a machine learning algorithm to generate a ranking based on a relationship with proposals. Accordingly claim 1 recites certain methods of organizing human activity.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application; as the additional elements are considered generic computer components; and the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations as an ordered combination and individually add nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract ideas. Accordingly, rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 remains for all pending claims.
Examiner’s Response to Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Applicant argues claims 1 – 2, 4 – 5, 8 – 9, 11 – 12, 15 – 16, and 18 – 19 have been amended and withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Examiner has removed rejection under 35 USC 103, as Examiner’s cited art Catani, Steve (U.S. Publication No. 2015/036,4057) in view of Spinner, Steven J. et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0134556) in view of Nelson, Steven et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/010,8494) in view of Boruhovin, Elizabeth (U.S. Publication No. 2017/030,0997) does not teach individually nor in combination amended claim 1; for example Examiner’s art fails to teach processing the modified set of proposals through the updated proposal ranking machine learning algorithm to generate a new ranking of the modified set of proposals. Accordingly, rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is removed.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §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 – 6, 8 – 13, 15 – 20, and 22 - 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8, and 15:
receiving a completed task template corresponding to a task associated with a member, wherein the completed task template is associated with a task type, and wherein the completed task template is received during an ongoing communications session;
generating a set of proposals corresponding to the task based on the task type and a member profile associated with the member;
generate a ranking of the set of proposals;
monitoring member interaction and new communications exchanged through the task-specific communications session to obtain feedback corresponding to the subset of proposals;
updating based on the member interaction;
detecting a modification to the subset of proposals resulting in a modified set of proposals, wherein the modification is detected during the ongoing communications session and the task-specific communications session;
and dynamically updating to present a new set of user interface elements corresponding to a new subset of proposals selected according to the new ranking.
The limitations of claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim particularly recites managing interactions where there are management of interactions between humans with a computer, as we have receiving a completed task template corresponding to a task associated with a member, wherein the completed task template is associated with a task type, and wherein the completed task template is received during an ongoing communications session; generating a set of proposals corresponding to the task based on the task type and a member profile associated with the member; generate a ranking of the set of proposals; monitoring member interaction and new communications exchanged through the task-specific communications session to obtain feedback corresponding to the subset of proposals; updating based on the member interaction; detecting a modification to the subset of proposals resulting in a modified set of proposals, wherein the modification is detected during the ongoing communications session and the task-specific communications session; and dynamically updating to present a new subset of proposals selected according to the new ranking. However, claim 1 merely recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and the claim observes completed tasks by the human that the proposals are based on as well as observes human interactions with the computer to provide feedback. Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar and recite the same subject matter as claim 1. Accordingly claims 1, 8, and 15 recite certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitations of claim 1 under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites mathematical concepts. For example, claim 1 recites processing the set of proposals and the completed task template through a proposal ranking machine learning algorithm to generate a ranking of the set of proposals, wherein the proposal ranking machine learning algorithm is trained using a dataset of sample proposal rankings corresponding to previously generated proposals; processing the modified set of proposals through the updated proposal ranking machine learning algorithm to generate a new ranking of the modified set of proposals. These limitations all involve mathematical relationships, where the claim involves mathematical relationships, that trains a machine learning algorithm to generate a ranking based on a relationship with proposals; in addition, training a machine learning algorithm considered in light of the supportive disclosure includes a selection algorithm which calculates scores for proposals and general concepts of using known data to set and adjust coefficients and mathematical relationships of variables that represent some modeled characteristic. Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite mathematical concepts.
The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas as well. For instance, claims 2, 9, and 16 are directed towards evaluating the member profile to determine a set of suitability metrics corresponding to the set of proposals; claims 3, 10, and 17 are directed towards observing the subset of proposals selected based on a predefined number of proposals; claims 4, 11, and 18 are directed towards evaluating a preferred proposal from the subset of proposals; claims 5, 12, and 19 are directed towards observing the ranking with the subset of proposals; and claims 6, 13, and 20 are directed towards observing the member interaction with the subset of proposal(s) to determine one or more preferences corresponding to a presentation of the subset of proposals, and evaluating the member based on one or more preferences. Thus, the dependent claims further limit the abstract ideas.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a processing the set of proposals and the completed task template through a proposal ranking machine learning algorithm wherein the proposal ranking machine learning algorithm is trained using a dataset of sample proposal rankings corresponding to previously generated proposals, generating a task-specific interface corresponding to the task, wherein the task-specific interface is implemented to present a set of user interface elements corresponding to a subset of proposals, and wherein the subset of proposals is selected according to the ranking facilitating a task-specific communications session through the task-specific interface, wherein the task-specific communications session and the ongoing communications session are distinct, one or more user interface elements from the set of user interface elements, processing the modified set of proposals through the updated proposal ranking machine learning algorithm to generate a new ranking of the modified set of proposals; in addition to reciting the additional elements of claim 1, claim 8 also recites the additional elements of a system, one or more processors, and memory; in addition to reciting the additional elements of claim 1, claim 15 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and a computer system; but these additional elements are considered generic computer components as per Applicant’s Specifications shown below:
“[0297] Client devices, user devices, computer resources provider devices, network devices, and other devices can be computing systems that include one or more integrated circuits, input devices, output devices, data storage devices, and/or network interfaces, among other things. The integrated circuits can include, for example, one or more processors, volatile memory, and/or non-volatile memory, among other things such as those described herein. The input devices can include, for example, a keyboard, a mouse, a key pad, a touch interface, a microphone, a camera, and/or other types of input devices including, but not limited to, those described herein. The output devices can include, for example, a display screen, a speaker, a haptic feedback system, a printer, and/or other types of output devices including, but not limited to, those described herein. A data storage device, such as a hard drive or flash memory, can enable the computing device to temporarily or permanently store data. A network interface, such as a wireless or wired interface, can enable the computing device to communicate with a network. Examples of computing devices (e.g., the computing device 1802) include, but is not limited to, desktop computers, laptop computers, server computers, hand-held computers, tablets, smart phones, personal digital assistants, digital home assistants, wearable devices, smart devices, and combinations of these and/or other such computing devices as well as machines and apparatuses in which a computing device has been incorporated and/or virtually implemented.”
and thus are not practically integrated nor significantly more.
Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., processor). The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., processor). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception, as the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the idea, and amount to no more than mere instructions using generic computer components to implement the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 – 6, 9 – 13, 16 – 20, and 22 – 24, when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reasons above, and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Claims 22 – 24, have the further additional elements of the task-specific interface is generated through an application executing on a member computing device, and wherein the set of user interface elements corresponding to the subset of proposals is communicated to the member computing device over a network; but this is merely apply it. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as ordered combination and individually add nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1 – 6, 8 – 13, 15 – 20, and 22 - 24 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank Alston whose telephone number is 703-756-4510. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM Monday - Friday.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737.
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.
/FRANK MAURICE ALSTON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3625
05/22/2026
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights