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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 18, 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1, 6, 10, 15, 19, and 24 have been amended. Claims 4, 7, 8, 13, 16, 17, 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 1-3, 5-6, and 9 are directed to a process (method), claims 10-12, 14-15, and 18 are directed to a machine (device) and claims 19-21, 23, and 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 based 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 by the one or more identified users;
transmitting, in response to adjusting the allocations in real time, 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,
wherein dynamically allocates the one or more tasks to the users by updating the primary queue and corresponding secondary queues for each user based on the determined weightage, the skill matrix, and the threshold, and
wherein the skill matrix and the weightage for the one or more tasks are automatically updated by:
using historical task data comprising prior task assignments and completion outcomes;
generating task weightage values based on task attributes including expected completion time, urgency, organization type, request type, and due diligence condition;
generating user skill scores based on historical task handling data including number of tasks assigned, number of tasks completed, skill level, and task complexity; and
updating the skill matrix by determining a correlation between the task weightage values and the user skill scores, wherein users are ranked based on the correlation for assignment of future tasks.
These actions, when considered both individually and as a whole are directed to actions that facilitate assigning one or more tasks to one or more users based on matching task requirements with user capabilities. 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; 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).
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 do recite additional elements:
a processor,
a communication interface,
a computing device,
a memory,
by implementing artificial intelligence and machine learning,
a communication link,
training a machine learning model,
an electronic notification,
via the trained machine learning model,
and/or a non-transitory machine-readable medium.
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“a processor”, “a communication interface”, “a computing device”, “a memory”, “by implementing artificial intelligence and machine learning”, “a communication link”, “training a machine learning model”, “an electronic notification”, “via the trained machine learning model”, and/or “a non-transitory machine-readable medium”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving, generating, determining, analysing, calculating, identifying, updating, assigning, allocating, adjusting, establishing, transmitting, changing, generating, updating). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 19, 58, 59, 77, 94, and 105 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the 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.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 10 and 19 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Dependent claims
Each of these steps of the dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 23, and 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.
Regarding Claims 3, 12, and 21
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.
Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of assigning one or more tasks to one or more users based on matching task requirements with user capabilities, which is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims do not set forth any additional elements. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed April 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a judicial exception, that any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, that the claims recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea,.
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 when considered both individually and as a whole are directed to actions that facilitate assigning one or more tasks to one or more users based on matching task requirements with user capabilities. 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 improvement is not to the artificial intelligence and machine learning, the artificial intelligence and machine learning are recited at a high-level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106), where nothing specific with regard to training the model or Artificial Intelligence are claimed at all.
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 certain methods of organizing human activity, i.e. 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.
Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR SELF-APPOINTMENT (US 20200210965 A1) teaches receiving from a user a request for an on-site service associated with a location; transmitting to a field professional information reflecting an assignment to provide the on-site service; receiving an indication, while the field professional is at the location, that an additional visit is required to complete the on-site service; accessing a future schedule of the field professional to identify an available time slot; and providing a proposed time for the additional visit associated with the identified time slot.
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
Prosecution Insights