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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 4/14/2026. Currently claims 1-20 are pending and claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. No claims have been amended from the previous claim set dated 2/11/2026. No claims have been added or cancelled.
Response to Amendments
Applicant did not amend any claims from the previous submission.
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 1-20 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), specifically an abstract idea, without significantly more. With respect to claims 1-20, following the guidance set forth in MPEP 2106, the inquiry for patent eligibility follows two steps: Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention? Step 2A (Prong 1): Is the claim “directed to” an abstract idea? Step 2A (Prong 2): Is the claim integrated into a practical application? Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea?
In accordance with these steps, the Examiner finds the following:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims (claims 2-8) are directed to a statutory category, namely a method. Claim 9 and its dependent claims (claims 10-16) are directed to a statutory category, namely a system/machine. Claim 17 and its dependent claims (claims 18-20) are directed to a statutory category, namely an article of manufacture.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Claims 1, 9, and 17, which are substantially similar claims to one another, are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental processes”, or more particularly, “Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (See MPEP 2106).” In this application that refers to using a computer system to evaluate and predict the future skillsets needed for an organization. To clarify this further, the Applicant’s disclosed invention is a conceptual system meant to perform the same function that an HR manager might perform for a large business. The abstract elements of claims 1, 9, and 17, recite in part “Determine skill share…Create time series…Extract embeddings…Transform embeddings…Correlate distance…Cluster skills…Define dataset…Train model…Receive user input…Assign cluster…Predict change in demand…”. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20 add to the abstract idea the following limitations which recite in part “Predict skill share…Determine skill score…Adjust neural network…Receive inputs…Structure data…Extract data…Create table…Skill share is…Determine skill score…Current demand is determined…Demand change is determined…”. All of these additional limitations, however, only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 9, and 17.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Independent claims 1, 9, and 17, which are substantially similar claims to one another, do not contain additional elements, either considered individually or in combination, that effectively integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. These claims do include the limitation that recites in part “Processor units…Program instructions…Prediction model…Computer program product…Computer readable storage medium…Computer system…User interface…Server…Cloud…memory…wearable device…” which limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further Step 2A (Prong 2) analysis.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 9, and 17, which are substantially similar claims to one another, include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of these claims recite in part “Processor units…Program instructions…Prediction model…Computer program product…Computer readable storage medium…Computer system…User interface…Server…Cloud…memory…wearable device…”. These items are not significantly more because these are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (evaluate and predict the future skillsets needed for an organization) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). This is exemplified in the Applicant’s specification in [0107] – “For example, processor unit 1104 can be selected from at least one of a multicore processor, a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a physics processing unit (PPU), a digital signal processor (DSP), a network processor, or some other suitable type of processor.”
Additionally, dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further 2B analysis.
Accordingly, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in light of the new rejections addressed above.
Regarding the arguments related to the 35 USC § 101 rejections, as addressed above according to the USPTO guidance contained within MPEP 2106 for 35 USC § 101 rejections, the Examiner maintains that the claimed invention is an abstract idea, without significantly more, and not integrated into a practical application. Additionally, the limitations and additional elements are claimed at a high level of generality and Examiner still interprets the abstract idea as simply being facilitated through the use of a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Particularly in light of the Desjardins, the claims and specification are unclear on what technological problem is being addressed. Rather, it appears to Examiner that the use of machine learning and training of ML models is intended to improve the accuracy of the particular analysis being performed (skill demand forecasting). According to the updated MPEP § 2106.05(f) (ninth paragraph) “in Ex Parte Desjardins, the claims reflected a specific improvement that addressed the technical problem of “catastrophic forgetting” in continual learning systems, while allowing artificial intelligence systems to variously optimize system performance, use less storage capacity and reduce system complexity.” It is unclear to Examiner what the actual improvement to artificial intelligence systems applicant is claiming.
Additionally, it is unclear to Examiner, what, if any computer component or system performance is improved by the claims. Rather, the claims are interpreted as an improvement to an information gathering and analysis technique that happens to take place by means of a computer, which is in contrast to Ex Parte Desjardins and Enfish.
The Applicant also makes numerous arguments as to how the claimed invention is further integrated into a practical application (Step 2A (Prong 2)). This is unpersuasive because the claimed invention needs have significant additional elements as to where the claimed invention is effectively integrated into those additional elements. As identified above, the additional elements of “Processor units…Program instructions…Prediction model…Computer program product…Computer readable storage medium…Computer system…User interface …Server…Cloud…memory… wearable device…” limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Finally, Applicant argues that the previous office action errs because the Examiner interpreted the limitation “predicting skill share for all skills in a skill cluster for the future time by training a machine learning model comprising a support vector machine using the training dataset for each skill cluster in the skill clusters by using feedback from a machine learning model” as being directed toward the abstract idea. This argument is unpersuasive because HR managers, within their roles, do evaluate and predict the required skills for their organization and the market as a whole. That the system uses generic computer functionality to perform that HR role does not fundamentally change the “mental process” aspect of the claims.
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 Michael R Koester whose telephone number is (313)446-4837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:00AM-5:00 PM 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MICHAEL R KOESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights