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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1, 5, 10, 14, 19, and 23 have been amended. Claims 4,13, and 22 have been canceled. Now, claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-12, 14-15, 18-21 and 23-24 are pending.
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.
3. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-12, 14-15, 18-21 and 23-24 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.
4. Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, Claims 1-6 and 9 are directed to a process (method), claims 10-15, and 18 are directed to a machine (device) and claims 19-24 are directed to an apparatus (computer-readable storage medium including at least one step. Accordingly, the claims fall within the four statutory categories of inventions (process, machine, and apparatus) and will be further analyzed under step 2 of the Alice/Mayo framework.
5. Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Regarding representative independent claims 1, 10, and 19, the claim sets forth a method, device and computer-readable medium, respectively, comprising:
Receiving the one or more tasks;
Generating a primary queue for the one or more tasks, wherein the primary queue is dynamically updated to reflect task assignment status;
automatically determining a weightage for each of the one or more tasks on historical data pertaining to the one or more tasks based on historical data pertaining to the one or more tasks;
analysing a skill matrix of the one or more users based on the weightage determined for the one or more tasks;
calculating….a threshold for each of the one or more users based on the historical data and the skill matrix, the threshold representing number of tasks a user can attend to;
identifying the one or more users for assignment of the one or more tasks based on the analysis of the skill matrix and the threshold and based on an availability of the one or more users;
automatically updating and maintaining the skill matrix for the one or more users based on the historical data;
automatically assigning the one or more tasks to the one or more identified users;
dynamically allocating the assigned one or more tasks to the one or more identified users based on the analysis of the skill matrix and the threshold, thereby increasing performance;
adjusting, in response to dynamically allocating, allocations in real time if the one or more identified users are unavailable and assigning the one or more tasks to other one or more identified users in real time who are available;
establishing a communication link by the one or more identified users;
transmitting, in response to adjusting the allocations in real time, an electronic notification, by way of an alert, email or message that notifies the one or more identified users of dynamic allocation of the assigned one or more tasks and adjustment of the allocations; and
changing an assignment status of the one or more tasks to "assigned" in the primary queue after successful transmission of the electronic notification.
These steps amount to assigning tasks to a user, which is considered functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information (i.e. data is received to queuing a task, determine, analyze and identify a user for the task and assign the task to said user) in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in a computer environment).
Further, these actions, when considered both individually and as a whole are directed to actions that facilitate acquiring information/data with regard to the skill of the user and weight of the task, i.e. analysing a skill matrix of the one or more users based on the weightage determined for the one or more tasks. These steps amount to methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation; advertising, marketing, and sales activities or behaviors; and managing human mental activity (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2){II}(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people — also note October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility on p. 5 and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II) stating certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping).
Dependent claims 2, 11 and 20 recite, in part, wherein: the skill matrix for the one or more users is based on at least one of a number of the one or more tasks handled by the one or more users, a time taken by the one or more users to complete the one or more tasks, a skill level of the one or more users, a region associated with the one or more tasks handled by the one or more users, a risk associated with the one or more tasks handled by the one or more users and an organization type associated with the one or more tasks handled by the one or more users, and the weightage is determined for each of the one or more tasks based on at least one of an expected time for completion of the one or more tasks, an organization type associated with the one or more tasks, an urgency associated with the one or more tasks, a type of request associated with the one or more tasks, and a due diligence condition associated with the one or more tasks.
Dependent claims 3, 12, and 21 recite, in part, wherein automatically assigning the one or more tasks to the one or more identified users further comprises assigning the one or more tasks to at least one first user and at least one second user based on the due diligence condition associated with the one or more tasks and the region handled by the at least one first user and the at least one second user.
Dependent claims 4, 13, and 22 recite, in part, further comprising identifying the one or more users based on an availability of the one or more users.
Dependent claims 5, 14, and 23 recite, in part, wherein modification in the availability of the one or more users, the method further comprising automatically identifying another user from the one or more users based on the analysis of the skill matrix of the one or more users.
Dependent claims 6, 15 and 24 recite, in part, further comprising maintaining a secondary queue for each of the one or more users, wherein the secondary queue for each of the one or more users comprises of the one or more tasks assigned to the one or more users.
Dependent claims 9 and 18 recite, in part, wherein the one or more tasks relate to request for authentication of identity.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims 2-6, 9, 11-15, 18, and 20-24 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1, 10, and 19 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner.
6. Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite, in part, a processor, a communication interface, a computing device, a memory, by implementing artificial intelligence and machine learning, and/or a non-transitory machine-readable medium. The specification defines a processor as be a microprocessor, a microcomputer, a processor chip, a controller, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor (DSP), a state machine, or a programmable logic device (Specification in § 0058), a communication interface as coupled together by a bus or other communication link (Specification in § 0077), and a computing device as a processor, a memory, and a communication interface coupled to each of the processor and the memory (Specification in § 0019), a memory as a static memory, a dynamic memory, or both in communication (Specification in § 0059), by implementing artificial intelligence and machine learning as at least one processor implementing Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning based on historical data pertaining to the one or more tasks (Specification in § 0094), and/or a non-transitory machine-readable medium as the computer-readable medium can include a solid-state memory such as a memory card or other package that houses one or more non-volatile read-only memories (Specification in § 0105). The use of a processor, a communication interface, a computing device, a memory, by implementing artificial intelligence and machine learning, and/or a non-transitory machine-readable medium are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
7. Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite, in part, a processor, a communication interface, a computing device, a memory, by implementing artificial intelligence and machine learning, and/or a non-transitory machine-readable medium. Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as use of Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite, in part, a processor, a communication interface, a computing device, a memory, by implementing artificial intelligence and machine learning, and/or a non-transitory machine-readable medium to process and output data. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception’).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-12, 14-15, 18-21, and 23-24 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant's arguments filed November 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, that the claims recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea and that the claims cannot be performed mentally and require technical operations on computing devices.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements as outlined above in the current 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection are recited as a tool to apply data implementing artificial intelligence and machine learning and report the results (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case involving a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer within the “Other examples.. i.”) amounting to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014). It is further noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims include embodiments that can be performed by a human using pen and paper. Alternatively, this process can be performed by a human to arrive at the inventive solution of the invention. Even though the claimed method amounts to more than a mere collection of data the method is still an abstract idea because as noted above in at least one of its embodiments it can be performed by a human with a pen and paper, it is gathering data to queue a task, determine, analyze and identify a user for the task, assign the task to said user, adjusting allocations if the user is unavailable, and communicating the assignment to the user and then lastly changing the task status to “assigned”. Further, these actions, when considered both individually and as a whole are directed to actions that facilitate acquiring information/data with regard to the skill of the user and weight of the task, i.e. analysing a skill matrix of the one or more users based on the weightage determined for the one or more tasks. This arrangement amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer-related technology. The method does not improve the computer or technology and can be performed using a generic computer. The newly claimed features are just tools used to perform the steps of the claim. Additionally, the machine learning as claimed is just merely a generic machine learning model.
Questions of preemption are inherent in the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (incorporated in the 2014 IEG as Steps 2A and 2B), and are resolved by using this framework to distinguish between preemptive claims, and "those that integrate the building blocks into something more…the latter pose no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible". This framework found that the claims do tie up the exception. (See the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). (Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The claims do not recite any unconventional computer functions. The structural elements as claimed are for mere convenience and the recited claim elements constitute a mental process and methods related to personal behaviors, as well as, activities or behaviors and business relations, i.e. individuals, which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. As a result, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and the claims are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is silent on any computer operation and specific technological implementation that would move the claim beyond a general link to a technological environment.
The Examiner would like to emphasize that there is no requirement that there must be a direct, one-to-one correspondence between a court case and claims judged to be abstract by an Examiner (hence ideas "similar" to those found abstract by the courts language).
In regards to Enfish, the claims assert improvements in computer capabilities with sufficient support in the specification that the claims were directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. The present claims recites generic computer elements used as tools to perform an existing business process and does not improve upon a technology, technological field or computer-related technology. Applicant’s invention aims to solve a business problem —assigning one or more tasks to a user— rather than a technological one. As stated above, Examiner finds, Applicants have not identified anything in the claimed invention that shows or even submits the technology is being improved or there was a problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves.
Further in regards to DDR Holdings, the very manner in which a computer responded to selection of a hyperlink was altered. As such, there was no analogous real-world solution, and the claimed solution was considered necessarily rooted in the internet (rendering web pages in response to an external hyperlink selection can only happen in the internet) in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in computer networks (retaining website visitors). In contrast, the present claims amount to merely the application of assigning one or more tasks to one or more users. The present claims are not analogous to those in DDR, which solved a problem directly arising from the technology (website visitors did not exist before websites). The present claims recite generic computer elements to perform conventional activities (see 101 rejection above).
Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
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 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUS FOR MEETING MANAGEMENT (US 20210399911 A1) teaches providing information about individuals, such as capabilities in the context of meetings. In various embodiments, data is captured about an individual, such as via feedback from others. Based on the data, individuals may be identified and invited to meetings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amber A. Misiaszek whose telephone number is (571) 270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4, every other Friday Off.
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, Fonya Long can be reached on 5712705096. 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: httos://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https:/Awww.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.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682