DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 responsive to the application filed 04/28/2023.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (filed 04/28/2023) has been received, entered into the record, and considered.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed 04/28/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
4. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Descriptive Title Required
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The title should be as “specific as possible” 37 CFR 1.72 while not exceeding “500 characters in length”. The title should provide “informative value” and serve to aid in the “indexing, classifying, searching” and other Official identification functions. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “monitoring a system for activity of said user; analyzing said activity and said social interaction data to obtain an analysis” and “performing statistical linear regression on said activity and said social interaction data to obtain statistical linear regression data” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “a system”, “a memory”, and “a processor” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f), and “obtaining social interaction data for a user” and “deriving a task clustering model based on said analysis and said statistical linear regression data” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a system”, “a memory”, and “a processor” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, and for the “obtaining social interaction data for a user” and “deriving a task clustering model based on said analysis and said statistical linear regression data” the courts have identified mere data/information gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely gathering data/information do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “generating a visual with said task clustering model” is a function that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claim. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “providing a visual of a weighted relationship” is a function that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claim. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “providing said visual to said user”, “observing a user interaction between said user and said visual” and “incorporating said user interaction into a learning database” are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claim. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “identifying related tasks within said activity with said task clustering model” is a function that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claim. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “providing a visual of a weighted relationship of said related tasks” is a function that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claim. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “weighting relationships of said related tasks based on said social interaction” is a function that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claim. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations “monitoring a system for activity of said user; analyzing said activity and said social interaction data to obtain an analysis” and “performing statistical linear regression on said activity and said social interaction data to obtain statistical linear regression data” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “a computer-implemented method” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f), and “obtaining social interaction data for a user” and “deriving a task clustering model based on said analysis and said statistical linear regression data” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a computer-implemented method” amounts to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, and for the “obtaining social interaction data for a user” and “deriving a task clustering model based on said analysis and said statistical linear regression data” the courts have identified mere data/information gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely gathering data/information do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 9-13, they correspond to claims 2-4, 6, and 7. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “implementing said task clustering model in an environment with a given set of constraints” is an additional element that recites insignificant extra solution activity which does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations “monitoring a system for activity of said user; analyzing said activity and said social interaction data to obtain an analysis” and “performing statistical linear regression on said activity and said social interaction data to obtain statistical linear regression data” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “a computer program product,”, “ a computer readable storage medium”,” program instructions”, and “a processor” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f), and “obtaining social interaction data for a user” and “deriving a task clustering model based on said analysis and said statistical linear regression data” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a computer program product,”, “ a computer readable storage medium”,” program instructions”, and “a processor” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, and for the “obtaining social interaction data for a user” and “deriving a task clustering model based on said analysis and said statistical linear regression data” the courts have identified mere data/information gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely gathering data/information do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 16-20, they correspond to claims 2-5 and 7. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brdiczka et al. (US 20110302169).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
As to claim 1:
Brdiczka teaches a system (Fig.7 and [0053]: a computer system 700), said system comprising: a memory (Fig.7 and [0054]: memory 724); and a processor (Fig.7 and [0053]: one or more processors 710) in communication with said memory, said processor being configured to perform operations, said operations comprising:
obtaining social interaction data for a user ([0007]: receiving the user-action information may involve monitoring user interaction with an electronic device...the user activities may be associated with one or more corresponding objectives of a project. [0056-0057]: Tracking module 730 may monitor or track user-action information 738 (which is associated with one or more user activities) when a user is using a computer (or, more generally, an electronic device). For example, tracking module 730 may perform event tracking while the user is using the computer... aggregation module 732 may identify subsets 740 of user-action information 738);
monitoring a system for activity of said user ([0024]: In a user-activity identification technique, a user's actions are monitored while the user is using a computer...the one or more current user activities can be identified; see also, [0026], [0028], [0038], and [0050]);
analyzing said activity and said social interaction data to obtain an analysis ([0029]: Then, the computer system identifies subsets of the user-action information (operation 114), and receives classifications from a user of the user activities associated with the identified subsets of the user-action information (operation 116). Note that the identified subsets of the user-action information comprise supervised data. For example, identifying the subsets of the user-action information may involve performing a clustering analysis. In addition, a given classification of the user activities in the received classifications of the user activities may be associated with multiple subsets of the user-action information; see also, [ 0030], [0042], and [0057]).
performing statistical linear regression on said activity and said social interaction data to obtain statistical linear regression data; and deriving a task clustering model based on said analysis and said statistical linear regression data ([0046]: Referring back to FIG. 3, the combination of the clusters and the associated activity labels may be used to generate a user-activity model (operation 316), such as a supervised-learning model that associates new or current user-action information with one or more of the identified and labeled clusters. For example, the supervised-learning model may be based on a technique such as: classification and regression trees (CART), support vector machines (SVM), linear regression, non-linear regression, ridge regression, LASSO, and/or a neural network).
As to claim 2:
Brdiczka teaches generating a visual with said task clustering model ([0026] and [0035]).
As to claim 3:
Brdiczka teaches providing a visual of a weighted relationship ([0009, [0031], [0040], and [0048]).
As to claim 4:
Brdiczka teaches providing said visual to said user ([0026] and [0035]); observing a user interaction between said user and said visual ([0026] and [0035]); and incorporating said user interaction into a learning database ([0031] and [0039]).
As to claim 5:
Brdiczka teaches identifying related tasks within said activity with said task clustering model ([0027], [0033], and [0039]).
As to claim 6:
Brdiczka teaches providing a visual of a weighted relationship of said related tasks ([0027], [0031], and [0059]).
As to claim 7:
Brdiczka teaches weighting relationships of said related tasks based on said social interaction ([0027], [0031], and [0059]).
As to claims 8-13:
Refer to the discussion of claims 1-4, 6, and 7 above, respectively, for rejection. Claims 8-13 are the same as claims -4, 6, and 7, except claims 8-13 are method claims and claims 1-4, 6, and 7 are system claims.
As to claim 14:
Brdiczka teaches implementing said task clustering model in an environment with a given set of constraints ([0040-0041]).
As to claims 15-20:
Refer to the discussion of claims 1-5 and 7 above, respectively, for rejection. Claims 15-20 are the same as claims 1-5 and 7, except claims 15-20 are computer program product claims and claims 1-5 and 7 are system claims.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact Information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN H. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3765. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LEWIS BULLOCK, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3759. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/VAN H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199