DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on June 16, 2026, for the application with serial number 17/934,382.
Claims 1, 13, and 19 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Interview
The Examiner acknowledges the interview conducted on June 12, 202, in which the subject matter eligibility of the claims was discussed.
Response to Amendments/Remarks
35 USC §101 Rejections
The Applicant continues to traverse the rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility, contending that the present claims recite a “concrete” process. See Remarks p. 19. Again, the Examiner disagrees. The present claims do not recite a special purpose machine or tangible process. Instead, the claims use generic computer hardware and sensors as tools to implement the abstract ideas of adjusting attributes of tasks and determining motivational personality attributes. Scheduling tasks is not a practical application of an abstract idea; scheduling tasks is an abstract idea. The presently amended language merely serves to describe the abstract ideas in finer details. An abstract idea without significantly more is just that – an abstract idea – regardless of specificity. Analyzing time series data and finding correlations to modify a schedule is an abstract idea. Nothing about modifying a schedule is “concrete;” contrary to the Applicant’s assertions. Contrary to the Applicant’s assertions, the steps of the claims could be implemented mentally or on paper. However, generic computer hardware employing a machine learning algorithm is recited for implementation. The claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. No apparent improvement to machine learning is recited in the claims. At best, the use of the sensors amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity.
The rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility is maintained.
35 USC §103 Rejections
In light of the Applicant’s amendments, the prior art rejection of the claims is withdrawn.
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.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Although claims(s) 1-20 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, the claims are directed to adjusting attributes of tasks (as evidenced by exemplary independent claim 1; “adaptively adjusting . . . respective attributes of respective tasks”) and determining motivational personality attributes (as evidenced by exemplary independent claim 1 (“determining . . . a [ ] personality attribute . . . determined to enhance motivation and engagement for performance of the group of tasks”); abstract ideas. Certain methods of organizing human activity are ineligible abstract ideas, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a). The limitations of exemplary claim 1 include: “analyzing . . . task-related information;” “generating . . . a [ ] user state profile;” “adaptively adjusting . . . respective attributes of respective tasks of [ ] groups of tasks;” “presenting . . . task information to a device;” “determining . . . a [ ] personality attribute . . . determined to enhance motivation and engagement for performance of the group of tasks;” “receiving . . . feedback data . . . compris[ing] a negotiation indication;” “analyzing . . . the negotiation indication;” “adjust a characteristic of a voice;” “applying . . the [ ] personality attribute;” and “presenting . . . negotiation data. “ The steps are all steps for managing personal behavior related to the abstract ideas of adjusting attributes of tasks and determining motivational personality attributes that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract ideas of adjusting attributes of tasks and determining motivational personality attributes. The dependent claims further recite steps for managing personal behavior that are part of the abstract idea of adjusting attributes of tasks. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes determining an optimal task workflow based on task-related information; and providing motivational messaging to aid execution of the workflow.
Under step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim provides a practical application of the judicial exception. Additional elements of the independent claims amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application (a system with a processor, sensors, and a virtual assistant device in independent claim 1; a system with a processor and memory; sensors; and a virtual assistant device and/or user equipment in independent claim 13; and a computer readable medium and a virtual assistant device in independent claim 19). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. The claims do recite the use of machine learning, but the abstract ideas of adjusting attributes of tasks and determining motivational attributes are generally linked to a machine learning environment for implementation. Therefore, the machine learning merely amounts to a technological environment that does not provide a practical application or significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Other limitations recite a modulator component and a voice generator component, but those elements constitute software per se. Software per se is not patentable. See MPEP §2106.03. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, nor do they recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. See MPEP §2106.05(a). The claims require no more than a generic computer (a system with a processor, sensors, and a virtual assistant device in independent claim 1; a system with a processor and memory; sensors; and a virtual assistant device and/or user equipment in independent claim 13; and a computer readable medium and a virtual assistant device in independent claim 19) to implement the abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Because the claims only recite use of a generic computer, they do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. See MPEP §2106.05(b). For these reasons, the claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, nor do they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims recite ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
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 RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 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.
/RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights