Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/08/2025 has been entered.
3. The following is a non-Final Office Action. In response to Examiner’s Final Action of 07/08/2025, Applicant amended independent Claims 56 and 69; Claims 58, 59, 61-68 and 70-75 are as previously presented. Claims 1-55, 57 and 60 were previously canceled.
Claims 56, 58, 59, and 61-75 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
5. Applicant’s amendments and arguments are acknowledged.
6. The prior 35 USC §101 rejection of Claims maintained despite Applicant's amendments and arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 56, 58, 59 and 61-75 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to a statutory category of system (machine), they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
9. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 56 recites .. assess user first category attributes based on user interaction in a user first category attributes assessment instrument ..; transform said user first category attributes into user first category attributes scores by operation of an attributes score calculator; assess user second category attributes based on user interaction in a user second category attributes assessment instrument ..; transform said user second category attributes into user second category attributes scores by operation of said attributes score calculator; allocate by user .. selection a first category attributes score allocation factor between 0 to 1 to said first category attributes scores: allocate by a user .. selection of a second category attributes allocation factor between 0 to 1 to the second category attributes scores, wherein the first category attributes score allocation factor and the second category attributes score allocation factor when summed equal 1; generate user-occupation fit scores of each of a plurality of occupations based on the first allocation factor and the second allocation factor selected by user .., which is an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, particularly fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), because determining user-occupation fit scores of each of a plurality of occupations for a user is a business activity for mitigating economic risk. Furthermore, it is also an abstract idea of Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because assessing user attributes, transforming the assessment into a score and allocating a weighting factor to the score is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the mind, since it involves observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion. Claim 69 recites a similar abstract idea with regard to an organizational fit for a user.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis for independent Claims 56 and 69, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the independent Claims, including additional elements such as one or more network-based non-transitory storage devices storing a plurality of assessment instruments, a graphical user interface to provide remote access over a network to said plurality of assessment instruments, said graphical user interface interactive with users and/or organizations, presented in said graphical user interface, interaction with a movable icon in said graphical user interface, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the limitation of ‘display a user-occupation fit score associated with each of said plurality of occupations’ is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
At Step 2B of the analysis for independent Claims 56 and 69, the independent Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figure 2 of the Drawings and page 7 line 23-page 8 line 20, page 9 line 11-page 10 line 10 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 58, 59, 61-68 and 70-75 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract idea noted in the independent claims and further recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 58, 59, 61-68 and 70-75 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2A Prong Two for the independent Claims.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 58, 59, 61-68 and 70-75 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not recite anything that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2B for the independent Claims.
Therefore, Claims 56, 58, 59 and 61-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573__ U.S. 2014.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 10/08/2025 have been fully considered, but they are found not persuasive with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
11. Applicant argues (at pp. 8-9) that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception at Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis but are integrated into a practical application of the abstract idea through the recitation of a specific manner of moving icons in a graphical user interface (which improves the GUI).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in detail at paragraph 9 above in this office action, the claims merely implement the abstract idea using a computer as a tool, and thus do not overcome 35 U.S.C. 101 at Step 2A Prong Two (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
12. Examiner notes that, subsequent to the interview held on 27th June 2025 with Mr. Miles, further consideration and review of MPEP 2106.04 in light of the judicial record on 35 U.S.C. 101 led to the determination that a user moving an icon within the GUI in order to effect a change in the underlying calculations giving rise to answers that are then presented in the GUI is, under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, merely data entry into the computer system (and the computer is therefore merely used as a tool, as noted in the preceding paragraph).
Examiner regrets any mis-perception caused by the discussion during the interview.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARJIT S BAINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0317. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Wu Rutao can be reached on (571) 272-6045. 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.
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623