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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08 April 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is a non-final office action in response to the request for continued examination filed 08 April 2026. Claims 1, 8, and 14 have been amended. Claim 3 has been canceled. Claims 1-2 and 4-21 remain pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 8, and 14 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment is insufficient to overcome the pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The rejection remains pending and is updated below, as necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s amendment is sufficient to overcome the pending 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. The rejection is respectfully withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant asserts that amended independent claims 1, 8, and 14 are patent eligible over the cited prior art. Examiner analyzed amended claims 1, 8, and 14 in view of the prior art of record and an updated prior art search and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine these references with a reasonable expectation of success as discussed below. As a result, claims 1-2 and 4-21 are eligible over the prior art.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the claims, as amended, are patent subject matter eligible. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stating in the advisory action mailed 01 April 2026, the graph representation of a user space is a visual depiction of the data processing and analysis steps and is used for human decision making (mental processes) regarding which user is best fit for a certain task assignment. This visualization is no different from a table/spreadsheet representation of data listing qualified and available users in ranking order based on skill.
While adding user interface functionality may advance subject matter eligibility determinations, user interaction with the claimed visual indicators must be linked to an improvement in interface functionality. Merely enabling a visual indicator for interaction or selecting an indicator as a form of data input is insufficient. The claim limitation for transmitting instructions to a user “to modify a dashboard indicating an assigned data structure for the selected user” is construed as non-functional intended use claim language because the claim does not positively recite limitations for modifying the dashboard and does not functionally limit the claim. The limitation requires the user to read the transmitted message and perform the transmitted instructions to implement the modification. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is proper, maintained, and updated below, as necessitated by amendment.
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 1-2 and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of assigning users to a project based on expertise and availability, without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a device, independent claim 8 recites a process, and independent claim 14 recites a product for applying graph representation to user and project related data to automatically allocate projects to users based on expertise and a set of statuses associates with the users.
Under Step 1 independent claims 1, 8, and 14 recite at least one step or act, including receiving a data structure. Thus, the claims fall within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Independent claim 1 recites the following limitations:
transmit, to a user device, instructions for a user interface (UI) including one or more input elements;
receive, from the user device and based on the one or more input elements, a data structure representing a project associated with a technical request;
extract one or more keywords from the data structure;
extract one or more properties from the data structure;
determine a set of users for the project, based on mapping the one or more keywords and the one or more properties to a graph representation of a user space;
determine a set of statuses, corresponding to the set of users, associated with availability of the set of users;
generate a UI associated with the graph representation of the user space, wherein the graph representation includes a first node representing the project, and a second set of nodes representing the set of users,
wherein a spatial distance depicted in the UI between the first node and the second set of nodes indicates rankings of the set of users in relation to the project, wherein the spatial distance is determined based on the rankings of the set of users in relation to the project, and
wherein the ranking of the set of users in relation to the project is determined based on an expertise of a user of the set of users, and an availability of the user;
determine a set of statuses, corresponding to the set of users, associated with availability of the set of users;
transmit, to the user device, instructions for a U1 including visual indicators for the set of users and the set of statuses, wherein the visual indicators are included in a pop-up window and include colored elements corresponding to different availabilities of the set of users, and wherein the visual indicators are enabled for interaction;
receive, from the user device and based on the interaction with the visual indicators, an indication of a selected user from the set of users; and
transmit a message addressed to the selected user and instructions to modify a dashboard indicating an assigned data structure for the selected user.
Independent claim 8 recites the following limitations:
receiving, from a user device, a data structure representing a project associated with a technical request;
mapping the data structure to a graph representation of a user space to determine a set of users;
generating a user interface (UI) associated with the graph representation of the user space, wherein the graph representation includes a first node representing the project, and a second set of nodes representing the set of users,
wherein a spatial distance depicted in the UI between the first node and the second set of nodes indicates rankings of the set of users in relation to the project, wherein the spatial distance is determined based on the rankings of the set of users in relation to the project, and
wherein the ranking of the set of users in relation to the project is determined based on an expertise of a user of the set of users, and an availability of the user of the set of users;
determining a set of statuses, corresponding to the set of users, associated with availability of the set of users;
transmitting, to the user device, instructions for a UI including visual indicators for the set of users and the set of statuses, wherein the visual indicators are included in a pop-up window and include colored elements corresponding to different availabilities of the set of users, and wherein the visual indicators are enabled for an interaction;
receiving, from the user device and based on the interaction with the visual indicators, an indication of a selected user from the set of users; and
transmitting a message addressed to the selected user and instructions to modify a dashboard indicating an assigned data structure for the selected user.
Independent claim 14 recites the following limitations:
receive a plurality of data structures representing a plurality of projects associated with technology;
determine, for each data structure in the plurality of data structures, a corresponding set of users based on a graph representation of a user space;
generate a user interface (UI) associated with the graph representation of the user space, wherein the graph representation includes a first node representing a project of the plurality of projects, and a second set of nodes representing the corresponding set of users,
wherein a spatial distance depicted in the UI between the first node and the second set of nodes indicates rankings of the set of users in relation to the project, wherein the spatial distance is determined based on the rankings of the set of users in relation to the project, and
wherein the ranking of the set of users in relation to the project is determined based on an expertise of a user of the corresponding set of users, and an availability of the user;
determine, for each corresponding set of users, an associated set of statuses indicating availability of the set of users;
transmit instructions for a UI including visual indicators for the corresponding set of users and the set of statuses, wherein the visual indicators are included in a pop-up window and include colored elements corresponding to different availabilities of the corresponding set of users, wherein the visual indicators are enabled for an interaction; receive, from a user device and based on the interaction with the visual indicators, an indication of a selected user from the set of users; and
transmit, for each data structure, a message addressed to a top-ranked user in the corresponding set of users and instruction to modify a dashboard indicating an assigned data structure for the top-ranked user.
Under Step 2A Prong One, the limitations recited in claims 1, 8, and 14 for transmitting instructions, receiving a data structure, extracting one or more keywords from the data structure, extracting one or more properties from the data structure, mapping the data structures to a graph representation of a user space, determining a set of users based on the graph representation, determining a set of users for the project, determining a set of statuses corresponding to the set of users, generating a graphical representation of nodes representing the project and the set of users indicating user ranking, ranking each corresponding set of users according to the statuses, transmitting visual indicators for the set of users in a pop-up window, receiving an indication of a selected user, and transmitting a message to the selected user, transmitting a message to the top-ranked user in the set of users, as drafted, illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity because the claim steps assign users to a project based on expertise and availability (managing personal behavior, and relationships or interactions between people). Therefore, the claims are construed as falling within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract concepts.
The limitations additionally fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas because the recited limitations for skills based matching of users to a project involve collecting user expertise and status data, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to recommend a set of users for assignment to a project could be performed by a project manager or human resource professional mentally or through further data analysis using a pen and paper to compare potential users based on predetermined factors. Further the output set users as graph nodes, ranked based on a best fit distance for the intended task, still requires human review and decision making. The claimed “graph representation” for visual comparison of the set of users in relation to the task is a data comparison step that could be performed mentally or through use of a pen and paper. The visualization of the data amounts to insignificant post solution activity because it merely presents the results of the data collection and analysis step. The user selection of a particular user of the set of ranked users, and the transmission of a message addressed to the selected user is mere data input and transmission, both of which are insignificant extra-solution activity. The claimed transmission of “instructions to modify a dashboard indicating an assigned data structure for the top-ranked user” is construed as the output of a set of rules upon the occurrence of an event, such as the output of a visual indication that a top-ranked user is assigned to the task. As a result, the recited claim limitations are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception of claims 1, 8, and 14 is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite a processor, storage device, user interface, pop-up window, and graphical node representation of users and the project, for performing the recited steps. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0075-0076] states: “The processor 620may include a central processing unit, a graphics processing unit, a microprocessor, a controller, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor, a field-programmable gate array, an application- specific integrated circuit, and/or another type of processing component. The processor 620 may be implemented in hardware, firmware, or a combination of hardware and software. In some implementations, the processor 620 may include one or more processors capable of being programmed to perform one or more operations or processes described elsewhere herein.” Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions, such as data gathering, performing calculations and data associations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
While the claims include additional elements in the form of a user interface (UI), memories, processors, UI input elements, a graph representation with nodes, and a pop up window for visualizing user availability data, these elements are claimed and described in the Specification at a high level of generality, without sufficient technical details to actively claim an intended result of improved memory allocation or improvement to API technology. Each additional element is used as a tool to implement the recited abstract idea. While adding user interface functionality may advance subject matter eligibility determinations, user interaction with the claimed visual indicators must be linked to an improvement in interface functionality. Merely enabling a visual indicator for interaction or selecting an indicator as a form of data input is insufficient. The claim limitation for transmitting instructions to a user “to modify a dashboard indicating an assigned data structure for the selected user” is construed as non-functional intended use claim language because the claim does not positively recite limitations for modifying the dashboard and does not functionally limit the claim. As claimed, receiving a selection from a user via an interface is construed as a generic data gathering step. The limitation requires the user to read the transmitted message and perform the transmitted instructions to implement the modification. While the efficiency or speed of data analysis, updates, and comparison may be improved through use of a processor to achieve results that could be reached mentally, increased data analysis speed or efficiency is not a technical improvement, it is a business process improvement. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, claims 1, 8, and 14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor and storage device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9-13, and 15-21 include the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The limitations of the dependent claims merely narrow the method of organizing human activity/ mental processes abstract idea by describing how the data is input, the type of data analyzed, and the type and medium for data transmitted to users. The limitations of the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application because none of the additional elements set forth any limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea implementation. There are no additional elements that transform the claim into a patent eligible idea by amounting to significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, independent claims 8 and 14 and the claims that depend therefrom are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis applied to claim 1 above. Therefore claims 1-2 and 4-21 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but the claims would be allowable if the aforementioned rejections are overcome.
Examiner analyzed amended claims 1, 8, and 14 and in view of the prior art of record and an updated prior art search and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine these references with a reasonable expectation of success as discussed below. Claims 1-2 and 4-21 are eligible over the prior art.
The relevant prior art includes Mohtasib et al. (US 2025/0068996), Etches et al. (US 2022/0343087), and Waterman et al. (US 11,144,853). Mohtasib et al. discloses in paragraph [0031, 0035] that each worker profile can also include an availability indicator, this is functionally equivalent to the proposed limitation to "determine a set of statuses, corresponding to a set of users, associated with availability of the set of users. Mohtasib et al. additionally discloses 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 a graph neural network, scores corresponding to the edges; based on the scores, allocating a first task to the first worker profile. Modification of a worker profile based on selection of the worker for a task via a knowledge graph is in the same field of endeavor as the proposed limitations for the spatial distance is determined based on the rankings of the set of users in relation to a project and transmitting a message addressed to the selected user and instructions to modify a dashboard (profile) indicating an assigned data structure for the selected user. Mohtasib et al. does not discloses a pop-up window with visual indicators and colored elements corresponding to different availabilities of the set of users.
Etches et al. (US 2022/0343087) discloses a directed graph for each service provider and ranking the service providers based at least in part on the distance between the first node and second node of the directed graph, with a root node and other nodes connected by edges. The distance provides an indication of how well suited each service provider is to provide a service related to the keyword. See at least Etches et al. [para. 0055-0057, 0065]. Etches et al. at paragraph [0054] further discloses "The service requester can select a service provider from among the identified service providers and based on the ranking of the service providers." Therefore, the proposed limitation "wherein spatial distance is determined based on the rank is of the set of users in relation to the project" is disclosed by Etches because the data visualization of Etches et al. is functionally equivalent to the proposed wherein clause in view of paragraph [0025] of the specification which states: "The set of users may be represented as nodes within the graph representation and selected based on distances between the nodes and a vectorized representation of the data structure. The set of users may be selected based on the distances satisfying a distance threshold and/or based on selecting a top quantity of users that are closest to the vectorized representation of the data structure regardless of absolute values of distances (e.g., selecting the top five users that are closest)." Etches et al. does not disclose "determining a set of statuses, corresponding to the set of users, associated with availability of the set of users," "visual indicators are enabled for interaction," or transmitting "instructions to modify a dashboard indicating an assigned data structure for the selected user." Waterman et al. discloses a pop-up window including interactive visual elements with color indicators, and receiving a selection of a user of the set of users via drag and drop (see at least paragraphs [57, 70-72; Fig. 5, 9a].
However, the combined references fail to teach, disclose, or otherwise suggest the specific ordered sequence of limitations presented in independent claims 1, 8, and 14. Moreover since the specific ordered combined sequence of claim elements recited in claims 1, 8, and 14 can only be found as recited in Applicant’s specification, any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all the claim elements, including the features discussed above, would be the result of impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Accordingly, any combination of Mohtasib et al., Etches et al., and Waterman et al. and any of the above additional references would be improper to teach the claimed invention. The prior art rejections set forth in the previous action are withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hancock et al. (US 11,037,079) - A project analysis, and match recommendation system having a user interface configured to receive user input regarding a project and associated parameters. The system also includes one or more processors configured to implement one or more sets of computer instructions which instruct the one or more processors to analyze a worker skill database having a plurality of worker profiles and associated worker skill proficiencies associated with one or more particular worker proficiencies; and determine a match between a plurality of particular required project competencies and one or more worker profiles having one or more particular worker proficiencies so as to facilitate optimal project assignment or placement.
Fletcher et al. (US 2014/0122143) - a first engine configured to determine an assignment of a resource to a task. The assignment is based on a schedule representation comprising at least resource profile data and task profile data. The resource profile data represents a resource profile associated with the resource and the task profile data represents a task profile associated with the task.
Mann et al. (US 2021/0342785) - a graphical representation including a plurality of sub-portions, each sub-portion representing a differing variable of the common category indicator. The table 4700 may be associated with a project (e.g., “Project 1” in FIG. 47) and may include, in the multiple rows and columns, tasks (e.g., in rows including “Task 1,” Task 2,” or “Task 3”) included in the project, persons (e.g., in a column 4712) assigned to the tasks, details (e.g., in a column 4714) of the tasks, statuses (e.g., in a column 4702) of the tasks, due dates (e.g., in a column 4706) of the tasks, timelines (e.g., in a column 4710) of the tasks, or any information, characteristic, or associated entity of the project. A graphical representation may include a chart or graph to visually display quantitative or qualitative data. Mapping may include a process of matching fields from one set of data to another. Mapping may also include a process of creating matching fields between two distinct data models, and/or facilitating data migration, data integration, and other data management tasks. Mapping may occur automatically according to a determination by the system or may occur manually by a user.
Melahn et al. (US 2014/0257894) - A graph comprising tasks, people, and relations associated with operations performed among the tasks and people, may be formed and grow as one or more of the plurality of project primitives are used to operate on the task node representing a project task, the one or more derived task nodes, the people node representing a first user, and the one or more of people nodes representing one or more second users in the social network.
Nouri et al. (US 2023/0206152) - system may receive task information for a plurality of tasks; generate a task graph based on the received task information, wherein the task graph includes a plurality of nodes and at least one node of the plurality of nodes is generated for at least one task of the plurality of tasks; assign an edge type to an edge existing between the at least one node of the plurality of nodes and another node in the task graph; generate, based on at least a portion of the task graph including the edge type, task significance information for at least one task of the plurality tasks; and update at least one graphical representation of a task displayed at a user interface based on the task significance information. In accordance with examples of the present disclosure, the high level task feature information may be presented in a board representation form and may include but is not limited to task name, due date if known, assigned user(s) checklist of items (e.g., subtask information), and completion status of task and checklist items.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LETORIA G KNIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-0485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Rutao WU can be reached at 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.
/L.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights