DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 9/04/2025 filling of Application 18/237,961. Claims 1-16 are now presented.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that the current claims describe improvements in computer functionality and/or improvements to other technologies at least because the claims provide that, e.g., performance of the computing device 116, and its related various components, may be improved or enhanced. There is also a desire to improve conventional systems and mitigate against inefficiencies and computationally intensive processing. Such systems and such improvements are accomplished via the inventions recited in the claims.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Limitations that can be classified as abstract cannot also represent improvements in computer functionality and/or improvements to other technologies. The Examiner asserts that the claims recited methods of organizing human activity, mental processes and mathematical calculations.
Further, the additional elements beyond the abstract idea include the computer elements and the broadly recited neural network attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished. Viewing the generic processor in combination with the attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant further argues “Additionally, Applicant notes that the claims are similar to the claim of "Example 39 - Method for Training a Neural Network for Facial Detection" which is subject matter eligible under the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG). The claim is reproduced below.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. On page 23 of McRo the court states “We therefore look to whether the claims in these patents focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Enfish”); see also Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., No. 2015-1570, 2016 WL 3606624, at *4(Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016).”
The Examiner asserts that in the instant case that claims do not focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology. The Examiner asserts that optimizing task allocation is not a technology or technical field, but rather a business practice.
Further, on page 22 of McRo the court determined “As the specification confirms, the claimed improvement here is allowing computers to produce “accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters” that previously could only be produced by human animators.”
In the instant case there is no such technical improvement disclosed in the Applicant’s specification that permits computers to perform a task that was previously only successfully performed by humans.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recite a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
In the Instant case, Claims 1-8 are directed toward a method for allocating tasks to workers. Claims 9-16 are directed toward a device for allocating tasks to workers. As such, each of the Claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that:
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of allocating tasks to workers using graph analysis which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts.
The elements of Claim 1 that represent the Abstract idea include:
A method comprising:
training a graph neural network based on simulated data;
obtaining a plurality of task records defining tasks to be performed;
obtaining a plurality of worker profiles corresponding to workers to perform the tasks;
generating a bipartite sub-graph including:
(i) a source node for each task record, each source node having a source feature vector encoding task attributes corresponding to the task record,
(ii) a target node having a target feature vector encoding worker attributes corresponding to a first one of the worker profiles, and
(iii) a set of edges connecting each source node with the target node, each edge having an edge feature vector derived by comparing the task attributes with the worker attributes;
generating, via execution of the trained graph neural network on the bipartite sub- graph, scores corresponding to the edges edge feature vectors, the scores being indicative of a strength of association between source nodes and target nodes;
based on the scores, allocating a first task to the first worker profile; and
transmitting the task record corresponding to the first task to a client computing device corresponding to the first worker profile.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
In the instant case, the limitations of “obtaining a plurality of task records defining tasks to be performed; obtaining a plurality of worker profiles corresponding to workers to perform the tasks;
based on the scores, allocating a first task to the first worker profile; and transmitting the task record corresponding to the first task to a client computing device corresponding to the first worker profile” are directed to managing relationships or interactions between people and the business practice of matching workers to jobs which are abstract.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
In the instant case, the limitations of “generating a bipartite sub-graph including:
(i) a source node for each task record, each source node having a source feature vector encoding task attributes corresponding to the task record, (ii) a target node having a target feature vector encoding worker attributes corresponding to a first one of the worker profiles, and (iii) a set of edges connecting each source node with the target node, each edge having an edge feature vector derived by comparing the task attributes with the worker attributes; generating scores corresponding to the edges; are directed to mental processes. A human using a pen and paper can generate the claimed bipartite sub-graph and generating scores corresponding to the edges.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas including: a procedure for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); a mathematical formula for calculating an alarm limit, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978); the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191, 209 USPQ 1, 15 (1981); and a mathematical formula for hedging, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ 2d 1001, 1004 (2010).
In the instant case, the limitations of “training a graph neural network based on simulated data; generating a bipartite sub-graph including: (i) a source node for each task record, each source node having a source feature vector encoding task attributes corresponding to the task record, (ii) a target node having a target feature vector encoding worker attributes corresponding to a first one of the worker profiles, and (iii) a set of edges connecting each source node with the target node, each edge having an edge feature vector derived by comparing the task attributes with the worker attributes; generating, via execution of the trained graph neural network on the bipartite sub- graph, scores corresponding to the edges edge feature vectors, the scores being indicative of a strength of association between source nodes and target nodes” are directed to mathematical calculations. This limitation is similar to Claim 2 of Example 47. In the analysis of claim 2 of Example 47, it was found that training a neural network can be considered optimization algorithms that use a series of mathematical calculations. As such, the amendments are directed to mathematical calculations.
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e)
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 9 recites the additional elements of:
computing device, comprising: a communications interface; and a processor configured to perform the abstract idea;
executing of a graph neural network to generate scores;
generating, via execution of the trained graph neural network on the bipartite sub- graph, scores corresponding to the edge feature vectors;
and re-training the trained graph neural network by providing a reward as feedback to the trained graph neural network.
However, the computer elements (the processor to perform the abstract idea) are recited at a high level of generality and given the broadest reasonable interpretation are simply generic computers performing generic computer functions. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Further, the use of the neural network is indicative of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(f) states:
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).
In the instant case, the additional elements of the broadly recited neural network attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it”. The claims do not state how the generates the scores. As such, the broadly recited neural network does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Viewing the generic processor in combination with the attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea.
In step 2B, the Examiner must determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element the processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, similar to the analysis with respect to step 2A prong 2 recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished cannot provide an inventive concept under step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
Viewing the generic processor in combination with the attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional element do not provide an inventive concept.
Further Claims 10-16 further limit the abstract idea of an analysis that can be performed mentally or certain methods of human activity that were already rejected in claim 9, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 9-16 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claim 9 otherwise styled as a method or computer program product, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. Therefore, Claims 1-8 are rejected for the same rational that applied to claims 9-16.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this 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).
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 DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625