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 Claim
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed on 12 of September 2025.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 8 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15-18 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Argument/Remarks
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that the claims cannot be performed in the mind. The examiner respectfully disagrees. To properly respond to grounds of rejection set forth in a prior Office Action, a “reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action.” 37 CFR 1.111(b). A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims is patentable is not sufficient. See 37 CFR 1.111(b). Thus, Applicant’s request is not persuasive because the request does not provide arguments specifically pointing out how the language of the claims is patentable. Further, the claims are directed to an abstract idea for the reason set forth in the rejection 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, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 7 recites “a log-in interface to allow a user to log in with a user identifier; a first determining module to load user attribute parameters from a user database storing the user attribute parameters corresponding to the user identifiers wherein the user attribute parameters include at least one datum selected from the group consisting of: a user working time, historical task amounts, a current task, a skill level value, a training time, and a number of skills; a second determining module to calculate a score value corresponding to the user identifier by applying a programmed scoring model to the user attribute parameters; a third determining module to compare the score value corresponding to the user to a target score value for the user stored in the user database and determine recommendation information corresponding to the user based on the comparison of the score value and a knowledge graph related to the user and stored in the user database; and a display to provide the recommended information to the user, the information including a set of skills the user lacks; and a training interface for the user to acquire the skills in the set of skills, including displaying video records of a second user performing one or more of the skills, audio records describing and/or explaining one or more of the skills, and/or text describing one or more of the skills; wherein the knowledge graph includes user entities, skill entities, and operation object entities; wherein the third determining module is further configured to: determine a first set of similar users based on the knowledge graph, wherein the first set of similar users includes similar users of the user corresponding to the user identifier; determine a second set of similar users based on a score value comparison process the second set of similar users includes similar users of the user corresponding to the user identifier; determine the intersection of the first set of similar users and the second set of similar users; and determine the recommendation information corresponding to the user identifier based on a skill of the users in the intersection stored in the knowledge graph and a skill of the user corresponding to the identifier stored in the knowledge graph”, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 13 recites “a processor; and a memory storing an application program; wherein the application program is executable by the processor and causes the processor to execute a method for intelligently providing recommendation information, the method comprising: receiving a user identifier during a log-in process; loading user attribute parameters corresponding to the user identifier from a user database, wherein the user attribute parameters include at least one datum selected from the group consisting of: a user working time, historical task amounts, a current task, a skill level value, a training time, and a number of skills; calculating a score value corresponding to the user by applying a programmed scoring model to the user attribute parameters; comparing the score value corresponding to the user to a target score value for the user stored in the user database; determining recommendation information corresponding to the user based on the comparison of the score value and a knowledge graph related to the user and stored in the user database; displaying the recommended information to the user, the information including a set of skills the user lacks; and providing a training interface for the user to acquire the skills in the set of skills, including displaying video records of a second user performing one or more of the skills, audio records describing and/or explaining one or more of the skills, and/or text describing one or more of the skills; wherein the knowledge graph includes user entities, skill entities and operation object entities; and determining recommendation information corresponding to the user identifier based on the score value and a knowledge graph related to the user comprises: determining a first set of similar users based on the knowledge graph, wherein the first set of similar users includes similar users of the user corresponding to the user identifier; determining a second set of similar users based on a score value comparison process, wherein the second set of similar users includes similar users of the user corresponding to the user identifier; determining the intersection of the first set of similar users and the second set of similar users; and determining the recommendation information corresponding to the user identifier based on a skill of the users in the intersection stored in the knowledge graph and a skill of the user corresponding to the user identifier stored in the knowledge graph”. Claim 1 discloses similar limitations as Claim 13, as disclosed, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1, 7, and 13 are directed to “Mental Processes” in particular “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” and “Mathematical Concepts” such as “mathematical calculations” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3, 5, 9, 11, and 15-18 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, and 13 recite additional elements in its preamble yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 1, 7, and 13 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3 and 9 recite additional element “machine learning”. This is a generic computer component recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1, 3, 7, 9, and 13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements described above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least Page 15 "FIG. 7 is a structural diagram of a device for intelligently providing recommendation information with a memory-processor architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 7, the device 700 includes a processor 701, a memory 702, and a computer program stored on the memory 702 and running on the processor 701. The computer program is executed by the processor 701 to perform method for intelligently providing recommendation information of above”.
Claims and 5, 11, and 15-18 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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 extension fee 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 MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 11/10/2025