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 .
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 extension fee 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.
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Examiner's communication of 11/19/2025, Applicant, on 02/13/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments 02/13/2026.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims can recite an abstract idea even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer’).
Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory in Content Extraction is according to the court an abstract idea that is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts. Present claim 1 is collecting and analyzing data using a generic computer processor. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude based on the similarity of the idea described in this claim to several abstract ideas found by the courts that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to the use of machine learning techniques, it is common practice that such computational models/techniques and algorithms are per se of an abstract mathematical nature, irrespective of whether they can be “trained” based on training data. Hence, a mathematical method may contribute to the technical character of an invention, if it serves as technical purpose or if it regards as specific technical implementation motivated by the internal function of a computer. Elements in the present claims do not solve a technical problem, but an administrative/business method, i.e. providing access to project application. Since the mathematical algorithms or models used in the present application do not serve a technical purpose, but a business purpose, and their implementation does not go beyond generic technical implementation, the use of the artificial intelligence techniques, do not contribute to a technical character and they are to be part of the abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements in the claims (“A computing platform comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to” “from a first user device corresponding to a first user”, “of a user interface”) do not improve any existing technology since they are a combination of old elements. Applicant’s arguments about the technical improvement described in paragraphs 0001 and 0017 are not persuasive because the instant language in the claims as amended does not reflect any improved technology or improvement to the computer. The Examiner identified the additional elements in the present claims which consist of old elements and the rest of the claim limitations are abstract. As a result, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, Step 2A Prong Two.
Applicant’s arguments regarding improving cybersecurity of the system are not persuasive. The present claims recite “determine, based on comparing the authentication information to a list of permissions associated with the record of applications, whether or not to grant the first user device access to the record of applications; send, based on determining to grant the first user device access to the record of applications and via the first wireless data connection, a first portion of the record of applications to the first user device, wherein the first portion of the record comprises less than all of the selection of information of the first request tag; cause, based on sending the first portion of the record of applications to the first user device, display of a user interface, and in response to causing the display of the user interface: granting the first user device access to the first portion of the record of applications; and blocking the first user device from accessing a second portion of the record of applications”. The present claims allow a user to access a portion of a record based on permission associated with the record of applications and based on authentication information corresponding to the user.
Analyzing the amended claims, the claimed elements describe a process for generating project tags for project silos, generating records of applications performing project operations, authenticating users to access the record application, and modifying project managements rulesets. The present claims are organizing information, managing a project, and controlling access to data wherein using project silos and tags are computerized version of filing and labeling information (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, established that digital ledger or record keeping is abstract). Further, receiving a request, comparing authentication information, and sending a portion of a record based on user’s role are routine, well-understood, and conventional computer functions (if the claim addresses how the data is blocked, for example new encryption protocol, and not what data is blocked, then the claims will be eligible). In addition, inputting data in an optimization model to modify a ruleset is a mathematical exercise that does not improve any existing technology. Finally, the present amendment to the claims as recited is not considered significantly more because establishing a connection is a fundamental function of every modern smartphone or laptop and considered generic computer function.
The Examiner submits that the cybersecurity improvement as argued by Applicant is not a technical improvement but is a result authenticating based on role and displaying portion of a record. There is also no improved user interface by displaying a portion of a record while blocking another portion.
In addition, Applicant’s arguments regarding specific technology improvement of generating and applying new project ruleset to a project management system are not persuasive because using generic machine learning model to update project ruleset is not a technical improvement over the prior arts.
Further, Applicant’s arguments regarding displaying a portion of a record while blocking another portion are not persuasive because this cannot be considered improved user interface. Please see Example 37 in 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Because the Examiner has determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the Examiner proceeds to Step 2B of the Eligibility Guidelines, which asks whether there is an inventive concept (Applicant’s arguments page 24). In making this Step 2B determination, the Examiner must consider whether there are specific limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well - understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56 (footnote omitted). The Examiner must also consider whether the combination of steps perform “in an unconventional way and therefore include an ‘inventive step,’ rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B” Id. In this part of the analysis, the Examiner considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine “whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. As discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that the claimed steps of granting or denying access to a user is accomplished in a non-conventional way. The Examiner therefore concludes that the claims used generic, conventional, technology to implement the abstract idea of generating project tags for project silos, generating records of applications performing project operations, authenticating users to access the record application, and modifying project managements rulesets, and that there is no improvement to an “existing technology” in the present claims.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
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 non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of generating project tags for project silos, generating records of applications performing project operations, authenticating users to access the record application, and modifying project managements rulesets.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “configure, based on a project management ruleset, a plurality of project silos corresponding to a first operation performed using a first set of information, wherein the first operation is a secure-by-design cybersecurity operation; generate, based on the plurality of project silos, a plurality of project tags, wherein each project tag corresponds to a different project silo, of the plurality of project silos, wherein a given project tag comprises: operation-level information corresponding to the first operation, wherein the operation-level information comprises at least one permission regulating access to information in one or more subordinate layers of a corresponding project silo; project-level information of the corresponding project silo; and application-level information corresponding to at least one application included in the corresponding project silo; execute at least one performance of the first operation using the first set of information; generate, based on the application-level information of each project tag, a record of applications performing the first operation and using the first set of information; determine whether a first wireless data connection has been established between the computing platform and a first user device corresponding to a first user; based on a determination that the first wireless data connection has not been established; receive a first request to access the record of applications, wherein the first request comprises: authentication information corresponding to the first user; and a first request tag, wherein the first request tag comprises a selection of information and wherein the selection of information comprises at least one of: a selection of requested operation-level information, a selection of requested project-level information, and a selection of requested application-level information; determine, based on comparing the authentication information to a list of permissions associated with the record of applications, whether or not to grant the first user device access to the record of applications; send, based on determining to grant the first user device access to the record of applications, a first portion of the record of applications to the first user device, wherein the first portion of the record of applications comprises less than all of the selection of information of the first request tag, cause, based on sending the first portion of the record of applications to the first user device, display, and in response to causing the display: granting a user of the first user device access to the first portion of the record of applications; and blocking the first user device from accessing a second portion of the record of applications, displays representations of each project tag associated with the first portion of the record of applications; train, based on the project management ruleset, an operation optimization model to output one or more project management rules based on input of a given record of applications, wherein training the operation optimization model comprises: inputting, as training data and to the operation optimization model, a matched historical record of applications corresponding to the project management ruleset; and causing, based on the inputting, the operation optimization model to store a correlation between at least one rule of the project management ruleset and a portion of the information included in the matched historical record of applications; input the record of applications into an operation optimization model, wherein inputting the record of applications into the operation optimization model causes the operation optimization model to output the one or more project management rules; and modify, based on the one or more project management rules, the project management ruleset, wherein the modifying produces a modified project management rules set configured to securely track resource allocation across multiple projects”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above, overall, recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for generating project tags for project silos, generating records of applications performing project operations, authenticating users to access the record application, and modifying project managements rulesets. The present claims are organizing information, managing a project, and controlling access to data wherein using project silos and tags are computerized version of filing and labeling information. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 9 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 9 and 15 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for generating project tags for project silos, generating records of applications performing project operations, authenticating users to access the record application, and modifying project managements rulesets. As a result, claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A computing platform comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to” “from a first user device”, “and via the first wireless data connection”, “via the communication interface,”, “establish a first wireless data connection with a first user device corresponding to a first user”, “establish the first wireless data connection with the first user device corresponding to the first user”, “of a user interface”, “wherein the user interface”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the step of “receiving” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “receiving” is an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 9 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 9 further recites “at a computing platform comprising at least one processor, a communication interface, and memory” and claim 15 further recites “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by a computing platform comprising at least one processor, a communication interface, and memory, cause the computing platform to”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 9 and 15 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 9, and 15. The additional elements in the dependent claims include “receive, from a second user device corresponding to a second user”. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A computing platform comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to” “from a first user device corresponding to a first user”, “of a user interface”. The step of “receiving” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “receiving” is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). In addition, comparing authentication information and sending and displaying portion of a record are considered routine and conventional computer function (See para. 0066 of Nuzzi US 20140136435 A1, blocking/showing portion of a record). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 9 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 9 further recites “at a computing platform comprising at least one processor, a communication interface, and memory” and claim 15 further recites “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by a computing platform comprising at least one processor, a communication interface, and memory, cause the computing platform to”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 9 and 15 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 10, and 19. The additional elements in the dependent claims include “receive, from a second user device corresponding to a second user”. The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments and arguments dated 02/13/2026 necessitated the updating of the 35 USC § 101 rejections of the pending claims presented in the present 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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose telephone number is (571) 272-0819. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu 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 an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623