DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on April 13, 2026, for the application with serial number 17/953,593.
Claims 10, 22, and 23 are amended.
Claims 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22-24, 27-29, and 32 are pending.
Response to Arguments
35 USC §101 Rejections
The Applicant traverses the rejection of the present claims as being directed to an ineligible abstract idea, contending that the claims are subject matter eligible because the claims integrate the exception into a practical application. Specifically, the Applicant contends that the claims recite steps that are rooted in computer technology. See Remarks p. 12. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Creating teams with an anchor principal investigator and mathematically optimizing the teams could be implemented mentally or on paper by a human being, but a general purpose computer employing machine learning is recited for implementation. Contrary to the Applicant’s assertions, no apparent improvement in computational efficiency is recited.
The Applicant additionally compares the present claims to the claims from Examples 37 and 42; contending that the claims are subject matter eligible due to similarities with those examples. Again, the Examiner reiterates that the present claims do not recite a process that is rooted in computer technology. No apparent improvement in processing efficiency or data filtering is recited in the claims.
The Applicant further submits that the claims recite an inventive concept because the claims recite unconventional operations in the field of predictive analytics. See Remarks p. 14. In response, the Examiner submits that using algorithms to make predictions is a mathematical concept that is, itself, an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04(a). Using an NLP tool for its intended purpose does not recite an inventive concept.
The rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility is updated and 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In light of the Applicant’s amendments, the prior art rejection of the claims is withdrawn.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 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22-24, 27-29, and 32 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) 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22-24, 27-29, and 32 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, the claims are directed to generating proposed teams (as evidenced by exemplary independent claim 10; “generating a plurality of specific alternative proposed teams”), an abstract idea. 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 10 include: “maintaining . . . a continuously updated database of teaming opportunities;” “maintaining . . . a continuously updated database of profile data;” “processing requirements data for an individual RFP;” “conducting multi-criteria best-fit matching of [ ] extracted requirements with profile data . . . to identify available personnel at the institution;” “generating a plurality of specific alternative proposed teams . . . and respectively evaluating said plurality of proposed teams;” “prioritizing the plurality of proposed teams based on projected team success;” and “transmitting individualized electronic notifications . . . to each of the identified team members [and an administrative user].” . The steps are all steps for managing personal behavior related to the abstract idea of generating proposed teams that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract idea of generating proposed teams. The dependent claims further recite steps for managing personal behavior related to the abstract idea of generating proposed teams that are part of the abstract idea of generating proposed teams. 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 assigning a group of workers to a project.
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 computer-implemented method in independent claim 1; and a system with a processor in independent claim 23). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. 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 do recite the use of artificial intelligence and natural language processing, but the abstract idea of generating proposed teams is generally linked to an artificial intelligence and natural language processing environment for implementation. Therefore, the artificial intelligence and natural language processing does not provide a practical application or significantly more than the recited abstract idea in the claims. See MPEP §2106.05(h). The claims require no more than a generic computer (a computer-implemented method in independent claim 1; and a system with a processor in independent claim 23) 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