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
The following is a final office action.
Claims [1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14, and 21-29] are currently pending and have been examined based on their merits.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 22, and 25 are newly amended see REMARKS July 07, 2026.
Claim 15-19 are newly cancelled see REMARKS July 07, 2026.
Claims 26-29 are newly added see REMARKS July 07, 2026.
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 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception that is an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Step 1: claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 21-25 recite a method (i.e. a series of steps), claims 8-10, 12, and 14 recite an electronic device, and claims 15-19 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and therefore each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The representative claim 1 recites: A method of allocating physical equipment resources between a plurality of organizations based on multi-modal data historical data of interactions between the plurality of organizations, the method comprising: acquiring, collaborative data for the plurality of organizations, the collaborative data comprising values for collaboration dimensions for and between pairs of organizations, wherein a pair of organizations comprises each respective organization in the plurality of organizations and each other organization in the plurality of organizations with which the each respective organization collaborates, wherein there is a plurality of the each other organizations, wherein the collaborative data comprises offline collaborative data and online collaborative data, wherein a pre-allocated amount of physical equipment resources are assigned to respective organizations in the plurality of organizations; determining, a plurality of collaboration indices between each pair of organizations using the collaborative data as input, wherein the collaboration indices comprise indices for online collaborative mails and instant messaging, indices for offline collaborative meetings, and indices for project collaborations, the determining comprising: for each collaboration dimension, generating, for each organization, a numerical value list comprising collaboration index values of all organizations collaborating with the organization, performing, a sort operation on the numerical value list to obtain a ranking result; obtaining for each pair of organizations, a degree of closeness between each pair of organizations according to a weighted sum of the collaboration indices between each pair of organizations, the obtaining comprising: synthesizing a weight value for each collaboration index to obtain a weight for each collaboration index, wherein in the process of synthesizing the weight value for each collaboration index, a larger weight value is assigned to a majority collaboration index and a smaller weight value is assigned to a minority collaboration index that disagrees with the majority consensus collaboration index, and determining, based on the assigned weight value of each collaboration index, the degree of closeness between each pair of organizations as a weighted sum of the collaboration indices; and constructing in real time, a representative of real-world interactions among the plurality of organizations, the representative comprising a weighted graph data structure having nodes corresponding to the organizations and edges weighted by the degrees of closeness, in which each node respectively represents one of the plurality of organizations; and indicating a re-allocation of physical equipment resources for at least one organization based on the weighted graph data structure, wherein the re-allocation comprises at least one of re-planning or cutting an amount of the physical equipment resources of one of the plurality of organizations which is determined to have an importance score, determined from the constructed weighted graph structure, that does not satisfy a predetermined criterion based on the pre-allocated amount of physical equipment resources assigned to that organization; and adjusting the allocation of the physical equipment resources among the plurality of organizations.
Claim 8: obtaining a weight of an index, perform operations which manage physical equipment resources between a plurality of organizations based on multi-modal data historical data of interactions between the plurality of organizations, the operations comprising: acquiring, collaborative data for the plurality of organizations, wherein the plurality of organizations comprises over a hundred organizations, the collaborative data comprises values for collaboration dimensions for and between pairs of organizations, wherein a pair of organizations comprises each respective organization in the plurality of organizations and each other organization in the plurality of organizations with which the each respective organization collaborates, wherein there is a plurality of the each other organizations, wherein the collaborative data comprises offline collaborative data and online collaborative data wherein a pre-allocated amount of physical equipment resources are assigned to respective organizations in the plurality of organizations; determining, a plurality of collaboration indices between each pair of organizations using the collaborative data as input, wherein the calculated collaboration indices comprise indices for online collaborative mails and instant messaging, indices for offline collaborative meetings, and indices for project collaborations, wherein a project collaboration is a management action, wherein the indices for online collaborative mails and instant messaging comprise: a number of mail collaborations, a number of people in the mail collaborations, a number of days for the mail collaborations, a number of instant messaging collaborations, a number of people in the instant messaging collaborations, a number of days for the instant messaging collaborations, the indices for offline collaborative meetings comprise: a number of instant messaging conversations, a number of meetings, a duration of the meetings, an average number of participants in each meeting, a number of days for the meetings, and the indices for project collaborations comprise: a number of collaborative projects, a number of project collaborations, a number of people in the project collaborations, and a number of days for the project collaborations, the determining comprising: for each collaboration dimension, generating, for each organization, a numerical value list comprising collaboration index values of all organizations collaborating with the organization, performing, a sort operation on the numerical value list to obtain a ranking result, and transforming the ranking results so that the collaboration indices under different dimensions can be compared horizontally; obtaining, for each pair of organizations, a degree of closeness between each pair of organizations according to a weighted sum of the collaboration indices between each pair of organizations, the obtaining comprising: synthesizing a weight value of each collaboration index through optimizing a target function through a stochastic gradient descent algorithm to obtain a weight of each collaboration index, wherein in the process of synthesizing the weight value for each collaboration index, a larger weight value is assigned to a majority collaboration index and a smaller weight value is assigned to a minority collaboration index that disagrees with the majority consensus collaboration index, and determining, based on the assigned weight value of each collaboration index, the degree of closeness between each pair of organizations according to the weighted sum of the collaboration indices; constructing, a representative of real-world interactions among the plurality of organizations, the representative comprising a weighted graph data structure having nodes corresponding to the organizations and edges weighted by the degrees of closeness, in which each node respectively represents one of the plurality of organizations; outputting instructions to (present) the constructed weighted graph data structure; re-allocates physical equipment resources for at least one organization based on the constructed weighted graph data structure, wherein the re-allocation comprises cutting an amount of the physical equipment resources of one of the plurality of organizations which is determined to have an importance score, calculated from the constructed weighted graph data structure, that does not satisfy a predetermined criterion based on a pre-allocated amount of physical equipment resources assigned to that organization; and adjusting the allocation of the physical equipment resources among the plurality of organizations.
Claim 27: managing physical equipment resources among a plurality of organizations comprising: for a plurality of organizations, determining a plurality of collaboration indices between each pair of organizations based on multi-modal collaborative data, such that there is a respective collaboration index for each collaboration dimension between each organization and other interacting organizations, wherein the collaborative data comprises offline collaborative data and online collaborative data indicative of interactions between pairs of the organizations wherein the determining includes, for each collaboration dimension, generating a numerical value list for each organization, and sorting the numerical value list, wherein the indices for online collaborative mails and instant messaging comprise: a number of mail collaborations, a number of people in the mail collaborations, a number of days for the mail collaborations, a number of instant messaging collaborations, a number of people in the instant messaging collaborations, a number of days for the instant messaging collaborations, the indices for offline collaborative meetings comprise: a number of instant messaging conversations, a number of meetings, a duration of the meetings, an average number of participants in each meeting, a number of days for the meetings, and the indices for project collaborations comprise: a number of collaborative projects, a number of project collaborations, a number of people in the project collaborations, and a number of days for the project collaborations; synthesizing, for each pair of organizations, weights for each collaboration index by optimizing a target function using a stochastic gradient descent algorithm, wherein in the process of synthesizing the weight for each collaboration index, a larger weight value is assigned to a majority collaboration index and a smaller weight value is assigned to a minority collaboration index that disagrees with the majority consensus collaboration index, combining the collaboration indices, according to their synthesized weights, into a composite index representing a degree of closeness for each pair of organizations; constructing, in real time, a representative model of real-world interactions among the plurality of organizations, the representative model comprising a weighted graph data structure, in which each node respectively represents one of the plurality of organizations, relationships between interacting organizations as edges, with edge weights corresponding to the degrees of closeness; determining an importance score for at least one organization based on the constructed weighted graph data structure; and based on the importance score not satisfying a predetermined criterion relative to a pre-allocated amount of physical equipment resources assigned to that organization, causing to re-allocate at least a portion of the physical equipment resources among the plurality of organizations.
The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity as the disclosure recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The claims recite a method of creating a collaboration network between a series of organization by determining a degree of closeness between each organization. Merely identifying and calculating the closeness between organizations to identifying a collaboration network is merely a method for organizing and determining the relationships between a plurality of organizations. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claims alternatively recite a mental process. As the claims recite series of steps construct an organizational collaboration network between a plurality of organizations by calculating a degree of closeness between various organizations. The courts have identified steps of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results as reciting mental processes. Furthermore, merely performing observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, merely calculating a collaboration index between organizations to determine if a collaboration network would be capable of being performed in the human mind or with simple tools such as pen and paper.
Alternatively the claims recite mathematical concepts. As the claims recite a process to calculate a value for the degree of closeness between organizations by performing mathematical calculations such as: “determining a plurality of collaboration indices between each pair of organizations, by performing a sort operation on a numerical value list, obtaining a degree of closeness between each pair of organizations according to a weighted sum of the collaboration indices, and synthesizing a weight value of each collaboration index.” As the claims recite merely mathematical calculations or steps for receiving numerical values and performing calculations to determine a value the claims are found to recite “mathematical concepts.”
Step 2A Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?): The claims additionally recite;
Claim 1: a computer, a server, an unsupervised machine learning process, a representative model, and generating, an output signal.
Claim 8: An electronic device, comprising: at least one processor configured to operate on instructions from a storage device; a display unit; and the storage device, which stores in non-transitory memory a model for obtaining a weight of an index, and further stores in non-transitory memory comprising: at least one processor; a storage device that stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations, the server, a project management system, an unsupervised machine learning process, display on the display unit, generating an output signal, wherein the collaborative data is pulled from communication client applications on terminal devices, a representative model, and adjusting by the processor based on the output signal the allocation of physical equipment.
Claim 27: A system for managing physical equipment resources among a plurality of organizations, comprising: a plurality of physical equipment resources distributed among the plurality of organizations; a resource allocator coupled to the physical equipment resources and configured to adjust distribution of the physical equipment resources among the plurality of organizations; at least one processor; and a storage device storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations; and in an unsupervised machine learning process.
The additional elements of generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea of acquiring data and calculating a collaboration index is not an improvement to a technology or technical field. The additional elements merely recite using generic computer elements to perform the steps of receiving, assessing, and recording information. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?): As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not recite an improvement to a technology or technical field but merely utilize the generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea of constructing an organizational collaboration network by calculating a collaboration index based on a degree of closeness of organizations. Therefore, the additional elements do not direct the claims to significantly more.
The dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, and 21-26, 28-29 further narrow the abstract idea of calculating a collaboration index and arranging a numerical value list of each organization as recited in the independent claims 1, 8, and 27 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not recite any further additional elements.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14, and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed July 07, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14, and 21-29 under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claims do not recite a certain method of organization human activity as the claims recite allocating physical equipment resources as the claims recite a pre-allocated amount of physical equipment resources are assigned to a respective organizations in a plurality of organizations and a re-allocation action. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims recite a series of steps or instructions for acquiring collaboration data, calculating a plurality of collaboration indices, and re-allocating physical equipment resources based on the results of the calculations. Merely receiving information, processing the information based on a series of steps, and allocating resources based on a determined value are found to be a plurality of instructions to manage the interactions between entities. The claims directly recite a method for managing personal behavior or interactions between entities as the limitations recite steps to calculate a numeric representation of a relationship or interactions between entities among a plurality of entities and perform an action such as allocating resources based on their relationships or interactions. Therefore the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activities.
The representative argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea as they recite a method that is allocating physical equipment, an unsupervised machine learning model process, processing over a hundred organizations and at least fifteen distinct collaboration indices, and combining the collaboration indices, which cannot be practically performed in the human mind. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as acquiring collaborative data, calculating a plurality of collaboration indices between each pair of organization using the collaborative data, generating a numerical value list, performing a sort operation, normalizing the ranking results, calculating a degree of closeness between each pair of organizations according to a weighted sum, calculating a mean value of each collaboration index between the pair of organizations, calculating a squared difference of each collaboration index according to the mean value of each collaboration index, calculating the degree of closeness between each pair of organization, and constructing an organizational collaboration network comprising graph data structure representing a plurality of nodes, and re-allocating physical equipment resources for at least one organization based on the organizational collaboration network are mental processes. As a person is capable of mentally, or by using simple tools such as pen and paper, of receiving data sets such as collaboration data, calculating values such as a collaboration index based on a series of mathematical steps, generating a list of results, generating a visual representation such as a graph of the results, and performing an action such as determining the allocation of resources for an organization based on the results. The claims merely recite a series of steps to receive and analyze a set of data to determine how to distribute resources based on a calculated score. As such the claims are found to recite concepts the courts have identified as being mental processes such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinions. Additionally, the courts have stated that claims are considered to recite a mental process even if they recite using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. Therefore, the examiner finds the claims to merely recite limitations of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying a certain result of the collection and analysis which is a mental process. Additionally, merely allocating a resource or determining a recipient or owner of a resource is a mental process as a person is capable of mentally allocating any resource to any number of individuals or entities. Such as a resource manager for an organization would be capable of regularly performing the steps of determining the budget or allocation of resources to branches or other organizations associated with the organization. A quick example would be something similar to a city manager being capable of allocating sports equipment to any number of rec centers based on some score or index such as their interactions with the local government.
The representative further argues that the claims do not recite a mathematical concept. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees and finds the newly amended claims to recite mathematical concepts as the claims recite a plurality of mathematical calculations. The claims recite a plurality of mathematical calculations such as calculating a plurality of collaboration indices, determining based on an assigned weight value a degree of closeness between each pair of organizations as a weighted sum of collaboration indices, synthesizing a weight value for each collaboration index, combining the collaboration indices, and determining an importance score. Additionally, dependent claims 24 and 29 directly recite a mathematical equation for determining a normalized ranking value.
Therefore, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea.
The applicant further argues that the additional elements are directed to a practical application as they recite a technical architecture of an acquisition of multi-modal collaborative data across a plurality of organizations, generation of ranked and normalized collaboration indices, unsupervised machine learning, real-time construction of a weighted graph data structure, and generation of a resource re-allocation signal. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the additional elements of a computer comprising generic computer elements such as a processor and a server and a machine learning model to perform the abstract idea of receiving collaborative data, analyzing the data by performing operations such as generating a ranked and normalized collaboration indices, and determining a result such as generating a weighted graph data structure and a resource re-allocation signal based on the results are directed to merely “apply it” or applying generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not recite an improvement to a computer or technical field and the claims do not recite any claim limitations beyond merely applying generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea of receiving and analyzing collaborative data to determine a result.
Therefore, the additional elements do not direct the claims to a practical application.
The applicant further argues that the claims are directed to significantly more as they resolve a technical problem of fusing multi-modal data streams into a reliable single metric and use automatically generate collaboration networks in real time by integrating a machine learning algorithm. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the additional elements are directed to merely “apply it” or applying generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea. As the claims merely recite using a generic machine learning algorithm to perform the abstract idea of receiving and analyzing information to generate a collaboration network or a graphical representation of the relationship between entities. The claims are not directed to significantly more as they do not recite an improvement to a technology or technical field of receiving and processing information to generate a display.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the current 101 rejection.
The applicant argues that claims 2-3, 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, and 21-26, 28-29 are allowable as being dependent on claims 1, 8, and 27 and therefore are rejected under the same rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Grady Smith (US 2017/0236081) System and methods for processing information regarding relationships and interactions to assist in making organizational decision.
Senay (US 2002/0038218) Methods for graphically representing interactions among entities.
Cogan (US 2010/0235489) Systems and methods for determining electronic relationships.
Young (US 2010/0094685) System and method for determining a value for an entity.
Galvin (US 8386639) System and method for optimized and distributed resource management.
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 COREY RUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-5902. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on 5712726782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/COREY RUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights