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 .
Status of Claim
This action is in response to communications filed on 23 of April 2026.
Claims 1-18 have been amended.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that the core of independent claim 1 as amended - what the claim is in fact directed to - is a clearly technological process, in which a neural network is used in a specific and non-generic manner to produce tangible technological outputs, thereby improving the functioning of a computer system. Such improvements indicate an alleged abstract idea is patent eligible. Ex parte Desjardins, PTAB decision on Appeal 2024-000567, at 8 (based on improvement in the use of a machine learning model). As in Ex parte Desjardins, the present specification details improvements to technology which make the claims - both prior and subsequent to current amendments -patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Mere automation of a manual process or claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.04(a); MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.05(f); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Further, the examiner notes that ¶83 of the specification discloses that “While in one example embodiment resources may be workers such as contact center agents having desired skills, resources may also be any resource for which provisioning over a series of time intervals (next 20 minutes, next hour, next day, coming week, etc.) is required, for example: computer servers; data storage volumes; and power sources in a power grid. Resources may be classified by skills. For example, where the resources are workers such as agents in a contact center, skills may include technical expertise and financial expertise. Where the resource is a power source for example, the classifying skills (or attributes) may relate to a renewable status, a power output etc.”. Under BRI and in light of the specification, the examiner continues to interpret resources as a human for staffing planning. Therefore, the invention remains a certain method of organizing human, since it is aimed at allocating resources (i.e. workers) which is deemed an abstract idea. Paragraph 21 of the Desjardins Specification, which the Appellant cites, identifies improvements in training the machine learning model itself. Of course, such an assertion in the Specification alone is insufficient to support a patent eligibility determination, absent a subsequent determination that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. See MPEP § 2106.05(a) (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Here, however, we are persuaded that the claims reflect such an improvement. For example, one improvement identified in the Specification is to "effectively learn new tasks in succession whilst protecting knowledge about previous tasks." Spec. ,r 21. The Specification also recites that the claimed improvement allows artificial intelligence (AI) systems to "us[e] less of their storage capacity" and enables "reduced system complexity." Id. When evaluating the claim as a whole, we discern at least the following limitation of independent claim 1 that reflects the improvement: "adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task." We are persuaded that constitutes an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates, and not, for example, the identified mathematical calculation. This is not the same fact pattern presented by the instant application and this would only work if eligibility analysis is determined in a vacuum and is merely reliant on claim language absent any consideration of the invention as a whole as described in the original specification as filed.
Applicant asserts that the Applicant asserts that independent claim 1 as amended requires transforming an allocation matrix along intermediate layers of a neural network -specifically, the same neural network that is subsequently used to predict expected service metrics based on the updated matrix. The Applicant submits that this use of a neural network constitutes significantly more than performing a purely mathematical calculation: as described in the Applicant's as-filed specification, the transformation is tied to the architecture and training of the neural network itself. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner must consult the specification and determine whether the disclosed invention improves technology, and if so, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359. The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. None of the steps/functions of independent/dependent claims whether taken alone or in an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, no inventive concept can be found in any unconventional or non-generic combination of known pieces. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
The examiner notes that claim(s) 4 and 13 include eligible subject matter and will overcome the 101 rejection if written in independent form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-3, 5-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 10 recites “a memory; and a computer processor, the computer processor configured to: transform, by a neural network, an initial allocation matrix into an updated allocation matrix along one or more intermediate layers of the neural network, wherein the updated allocation matrix comprises a plurality of feature matrices, each feature matrix describing a computer hardware or software resource among a plurality of computer hardware or software resources; predict, using the neural network, at least one expected service metric for the updated allocation matrix; provide a final allocation matrix based on the at least one expected service metric; and select one or more of the computer hardware or software resources based on the final allocation matrix, and execute a computer task by the selected one or more computer hardware or software resources”. Claim 1 discloses similar limitations as Claim 10, as disclosed, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1 and 10 are directed to “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity” such as “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” and “Mathematical Concepts” such as “mathematical calculations” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-9, 11, 12, and 14-18 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1 and 10 recite additional elements in its preamble yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 1 and 10 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3, 5, 12, and 14 recite additional elements “database”, “a computer”, and “a communication network”. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 12, and 14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements described above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶53-54 " Fig. 1 shows a high-level block diagram of an exemplary computing device which may be used with embodiments of the present invention. Computing device 100 may include a controller or computer processor 105 that may be, for example, a central processing unit processor (CPU), a chip or any suitable computing device, an operating system 115, a memory 120, a storage 130, input devices 135 and output devices 140 such as a computer display or monitor displaying for example a computer desktop system. Operating system 115 may be or may include code to perform tasks involving coordination, scheduling, arbitration, or managing operation of computing device 100, for example, scheduling execution of programs. Memory 120 may be or may include, for example, a Random Access Memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), a Flash memory, a volatile or non-volatile memory, or other suitable memory units or storage units. Memory 120 may be or may include a plurality of different memory units. Memory 120 may store for example, instructions (e.g. code 125) to carry out a method as disclosed herein, and/or data such as low-level action data, output data, etc.”.
Claims 2, 6-9, 11, and 15-18 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
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 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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.
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 5/13/2026
Prosecution Insights