CTNF 18/128,510 CTNF 84379 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step One Claims 1 - 9 are directed to a method Claims 17 - 20 are directed to a system with structural components. Thus, each of these claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Claims 10 - 16 recites “one or more computer-readable storage media” that stores a software program performing a function. The Specification fails to expressly limit the recited “media” to a statutory embodiment. Thus, the plain and ordinary meaning of the recited "media" includes signals, carrier waves, etc. Accordingly, the recited “one or more computer-readable storage media” are not a process, a machine, a manufacture or a composition of matter, and claims 10-16 fail to recite statutory subject matter as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101. As to claims 1, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites in part: identifying in real-time, by the processor set, actions of interest within software activity data generated during a workflow event of a user based on a recommendation profile of the user; For example, a human watching someone work and mentally spotting key actions. determining, by the processor set from the knowledge corpus of software recommendations, one or more software recommendations for injecting one or more tasks into the workflow based on the actions of interest and the recommendation profile of the user; For example, a human recalling past experiences to decide what task to suggest next. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: sending, by the processor set, a recommendation notification to the user during the workflow event; which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim further recites: training, by a processor set, a machine learning (ML) predictive model with workflow event data received from multiple remote computing devices, thereby outputting a knowledge corpus of software recommendations to complete tasks in workflow events; updating, by the processor set, the ML predictive model based on user feedback responsive to the recommendation notification. which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than 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. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) The claim further recites a processor set which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: sending, by the processor set, a recommendation notification to the user during the workflow event; are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). The claim further recites: training, by a processor set, a machine learning (ML) predictive model with workflow event data received from multiple remote computing devices, thereby outputting a knowledge corpus of software recommendations to complete tasks in workflow events; updating, by the processor set, the ML predictive model based on user feedback responsive to the recommendation notification. which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than 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. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) The claim further recites a processor set which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claims 2, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites in part: scoring, by the processor set, the one or more software recommendations utilizing a neural network For example, a human can assign a score to each software recommendations to signify its importance. s As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: the recommendation notification includes a subset of the one or more software recommendations that meet a predetermined threshold. which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: the recommendation notification includes a subset of the one or more software recommendations that meet a predetermined threshold. are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claims 3, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites in part: the recommendation profile of the user comprises information about a role of the user and user-selected software tools or tasks to be optimized, wherein the one or more software recommendations are customized for the user based on the recommendation profile, For example, a human can create a “recommendation profile” using a pencil and paper that recommends the optimal software to be used based on each particular user. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: receiving, by the processor set, the information about the user and the user-selected software tools or tasks to be optimized from the user via a user interface (UI). which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: receiving, by the processor set, the information about the user and the user-selected software tools or tasks to be optimized from the user via a user interface (UI). are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claims 4, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: the identifying the actions of interest within the software activity data comprises monitoring the software activity data utilizing one or more of the group consisting of: text mining, natural language processing (NLP), and computer-based pattern recognition. Are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than 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. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: the identifying the actions of interest within the software activity data comprises monitoring the software activity data utilizing one or more of the group consisting of: text mining, natural language processing (NLP), and computer-based pattern recognition. which amounts to use of generic computing tools to execute the instruction for the judicial exception does not denote anything significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claims 5, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: the determining the one or more software recommendations with respect to the actions of interest comprises collecting and storing, by the processor set, workflow event data of interest generating during the workflow event, the workflow event data of interest being associated with the actions of interest, wherein the determining the one or more software recommendations is based on the workflow event data of interest, and the workflow event data of interest includes one or more selected from the group consisting of: time spent on one or more tasks of the workflow event; frequency metrics regarding one or more tasks of the workflow event; user engagement metrics during the workflow event; software utilization associated with the actions of interest; time adjacent software utilization with respect to the actions of interest; and user inputs during the workflow event. which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: the determining the one or more software recommendations with respect to the actions of interest comprises collecting and storing, by the processor set, workflow event data of interest generating during the workflow event, the workflow event data of interest being associated with the actions of interest, wherein the determining the one or more software recommendations is based on the workflow event data of interest, and the workflow event data of interest includes one or more selected from the group consisting of: time spent on one or more tasks of the workflow event; frequency metrics regarding one or more tasks of the workflow event; user engagement metrics during the workflow event; software utilization associated with the actions of interest; time adjacent software utilization with respect to the actions of interest; and user inputs during the workflow event. are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claims 6, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: the workflow event data of interest is collected from multiple software applications on a remote client device of the user, the multiple software application executing tasks during the workflow event. which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: the workflow event data of interest is collected from multiple software applications on a remote client device of the user, the multiple software application executing tasks during the workflow event. are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As to claims 7, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites in part: the one or more software recommendations comprise optimized recommended software tools or software tasks that reduce a time to complete the workflow. For example, a human can recommend the optimal software to be used based on past experiences. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Step 2B The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception. As to claims 8, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites in part: filtering, by the processor set, the one or more recommendations, thereby generating a final set of recommendations for the user, wherein the recommendation notification includes the final set of recommendations. For example, a human can recommend the optimal software to be used based on past experiences and filter out recommendations that don’t apply. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong Two The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Step 2B The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception. As to claims 9, Step 2A, Prong One The claim recites the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong Two The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: the recommendation notification includes contact information regarding another user from whom one or more recommendations in the recommendation notification was derived, based on user data in the knowledge corpus of software recommendations. which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: the recommendation notification includes contact information regarding another user from whom one or more recommendations in the recommendation notification was derived, based on user data in the knowledge corpus of software recommendations. are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 10 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above. The claim further recites a one or more computer readable storage media which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 11 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above. Claim 12 has similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above. Claim 13 has similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above. Claim 14 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above. Claim 15 has similar limitations as claim 8. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above. Claim 16 has similar limitations as claim 9. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above. Claim 17 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above. The claim further recites a processor set and a computing device which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 18 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above. Claim 19 has similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above. Claim 20 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bastide et al (US 2018/0075513) teaches computer-implemented methods and systems are provided for recommending one or more applications to users connected to one or more social networks. The computer-implemented method may include determining frequency of interaction between the users connected to the one or more social networks, analyzing behavioral patterns of the users connected to the one or more social networks, the behavioral patterns derived by considering at least the frequency of interaction between the users, and enabling at least one service provider to recommend one or more applications to one or more of the users based on the monitored behavioral patterns. KATUKURI et al (US 2019/0370345) teaches a technique for providing software application recommendations to a user of a computing device. The technique can include: (1) receiving, from the computing device, a request for at least one software application recommendation, (2) identifying, among a plurality of user profiles, a user profile associated with the user, (3) accessing a plurality of software application profiles (SAPs), wherein each SAP of the plurality of SAPs is associated with a respective software application managed by the server computing device, (4) analyzing the user profile against a subset of the plurality of SAPs to identify, among the respective software applications associated with the subset of the plurality of SAPs, at least one software application to recommend, (5) associating the at least one software application recommendation with the at least one software application, and (6) causing the computing device to display the at least one software application recommendation. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's 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, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589 . 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. /BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/128,510 Page 2 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/128,510 Page 3 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/128,510 Page 4 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/128,510 Page 5 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/128,510 Page 6 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/128,510 Page 7 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/128,510 Page 8 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/128,510 Page 9 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/128,510 Page 10 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/128,510 Page 11 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/128,510 Page 12 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/128,510 Page 13 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/128,510 Page 14 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/128,510 Page 15 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/128,510 Page 16 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/128,510 Page 17 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/128,510 Page 18 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/128,510 Page 19 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/128,510 Page 20 Art Unit: 2128 Application/Control Number: 18/128,510 Page 21 Art Unit: 2128
Prosecution Insights