DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This communication is a final action in response to the communications filed on 9/2/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), without providing a practical application integration and without providing significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claims 1-20 are directed to a method (i.e., process), a system (i.e., machine/apparatus), nontransitory medium (i.e., product) which are statutory categories of invention.
As per Step 2A-Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of managing business processes comprising: reading a set of business process definitions and statuses from a project management system, wherein the business process definitions define a plurality of tasks, each task of the plurality of tasks assigned to a user of a plurality of users, the plurality of tasks defining a workflow, and wherein the statuses indicate a current state of one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks; maintaining a set of transition rules defining processes for transitioning items through the workflow defined in the business process definitions; executing the processes defined in the set of transition rules, initiate and manage communications, assign tasks, and update the status for assigned tasks, update the business process definitions, and update scores for the plurality of users; managing scoring of each user of the plurality of users based on the business process definitions and statuses and results of execution of the set of transition rules; and managing a meeting conducted between the plurality of users based on the business process definitions and statuses and the set of transition rules, wherein managing the meeting comprises monitoring communications in the meeting using Natural Language Processing (NLP) and updating the status for one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks, the business process definition for one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks, and a score for one or more users of the plurality of users; which include mental processes (observing, evaluating, data/information regarding business processes and project management and making a judgment and opinion on scoring the users and managing meetings and tasks/tasks statuses), certain methods of organizing human activity based on managing personal behavior or interactions between people (social activities and following rules and instructions to scoring the users and managing meetings and tasks/tasks statuses regarding business processes and project management). Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are directed to the abstract idea of claim 1 with further details of the abstract idea which includes mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity for similar reasons as provided above for claim 1. After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per Step 2A-Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 1-20 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as processor of a gamification system, a project management system, one or more bots, {meeting conducted} electronically, electronic {communications}, using Natural Language Processing (NLP) of the electronic communications, these limitations are not enough to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 1-20 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as processor of a gamification system, a project management system, one or more bots, {meeting conducted} electronically, electronic {communications}, using Natural Language Processing (NLP) of the electronic communications, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-20 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 9/2/2025 have been fully considered. Details are provided below.
Arguments on Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s failed to provide arguments directed to specific claim language; accordingly, rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Closest prior art to the invention includes:
Fahrendorff et al., (US 2021/0056860), Akifuji et al., (JP 2000067130), Henriksen et al., (US 2013/0117060), and Kanda et al., (JP 2006123153) as applied in the rejections in the previous Office actions.
Bhatt et al., (US 2019/0102078) discloses techniques for improving a bot system for monitoring, analyzing, visualizing and improving the performance of a bot system through the graphic user interface.
Yang (CN 106956265) discloses a method for planning and controlling the movement of a robot according to the selected responding function calculating control command data and transmitting instructions to the robot through the communication management program.
Wuetal., (CN 109773782) discloses a method according to all objects selected and classified in the temporary set according to the type of element in the temporary set corresponding to the transition-point processing.
Muszynska, “Gamification of communication and documentation processes in project teams”, by Karolina Muszynska, Institute of Management, University of Szczecin, UL. Cukrowa 8, 71-004 Szczecin, Poland, 24" International Conference of Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information & Engineering, ScienceDirect, Procedia Computer Science 176 (2020) 3645-3653.
None of the prior art alone or in combination teaches the claimed invention; wherein the novelty is in the combination of all the limitations and not in a single limitation.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MEHMET YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)272-3257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
Sincerely,
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624