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 06/06/2025, Applicant, on 09/05/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 12 are currently amended.
Claims 7-9 and 17-19 are canceled.
Claims 1-6, 10-16, and 20 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments – Claim interpretations
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim interpretations and acknowledges that the modules are software components implemented by the processor as instructions. Accordingly, the Examiner withdraws the claim interpretations of claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 9-11 in the present office action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on page 8 “claim 1 is directed to a system”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim does not recite any physical system (hardware). With the broadest reasonable interpretation, since the modules do not comprise physical elements, they can be interpreted as software elements, i.e. printed matter. Printed matter is not statutory subject matter under 35 USC 101
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 to perform the recited abstract idea. 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.
Further, the additional elements in the claims (“A system for”, and “the system comprising”, “a receiver module configured to”, “a role determination module configured to”, “a skill determination module configured to”, “a candidate filter module configured to”, “a psychometric assessment module configured to”, “a compatibility module configured to”, “and a recommendation module configured to” and “a processing unit” as in claim 12) do not improve any existing technology. As a result, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, Step 2A Prong Two.
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. 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 steps of recommending potential team for project tasks are accomplished in a non-conventional way. The Examiner therefore concludes that the claims used generic, conventional, technology to implement the abstract idea of recommending potential team for project tasks and that there is no improvement to an “existing technology.”
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 103
The arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive.
None of the cited documents by the Examiner, taken individually or in combination, discloses or suggests the features in the independent claims as amended, nor could a person skilled in the art easily conceive of such features even in the light of common technical knowledge at the time of filing. The pending claims 1-6, 10-16, and 20 are therefore distinguished from the prior arts cited by the Examiner.
In conclusion, the Examiner withdraws the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 103 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 1-6, 10-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-6, 10-16, and 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 1-6, 10-16, and 20 even if they were directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of recommending potential team for project tasks.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “recommending workforce and associated skillset for a task, receive a description of a task from a user along with details of one or more current participants of the task; determine one or more roles associated with the task by parsing the received description; determine at least one of: one or more skills and a required number of candidates for handling each of the determined one or more roles; filter at least one candidate from one or more candidates for handling the determined one or more roles based on the determined one or more skills and the required number of candidates; determine psychometric qualities of each of the filtered at least one candidate and the received one or more current participants of the task, further determines a phenotype of each of the filtered at least one candidate and the received one or more current participants, wherein the phenotype includes: a pure phenotype corresponding to a score difference between a primary trait and a secondary trait is at least 5;a composite phenotype corresponding to a score difference between the primary trait and the secondary trait less than 5; and a dual phenotype corresponding to a score difference between the primary trait and the secondary trait is at most 2; determine psychometric compatibility score of the filtered at least one candidate with the received one or more current participants based on the determined corresponding psychometric qualities, determines the psychometric compatibility score based on the determined phenotype of each of the filtered at least one candidate and the received one or more current participants; recommend a potential team including the filtered at least one candidate based on the determined psychometric compatibility score and the determined required number of candidates”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above 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 recommending potential team for project tasks. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 12 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-6, 10-11, 13- 16, and 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 recommending potential team for project tasks. As a result, claims 2-6, 10-11, 13- 16, and 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 system for”, and “the system comprising”, “a receiver module configured to”, “a role determination module configured to”, “a skill determination module configured to”, “a candidate filter module configured to”, “a psychometric assessment module configured to”, “a compatibility module configured to”, “and a recommendation module configured to”. 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, claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 12 further recites “A method”, “a processing unit”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements in the claim 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 12 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-6, 10-11, 13- 16, and 20 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1 and 12. As a result, claims 2-6, 10-11, 13- 16, and 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 system for”, and “the system comprising”, “a receiver module configured to”, “a role determination module configured to”, “a skill determination module configured to”, “a candidate filter module configured to”, “a psychometric assessment module configured to”, “a compatibility module configured to”, “and a recommendation module configured to”. 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). 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, claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 12 further recites “A method”, “a processing unit”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements in the claim 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 12 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-6, 10-11, 13- 16, and 20 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1 and 12. As a result, claims 2-6, 10-11, 13- 16, and 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 1-6, 10-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to software per se. Applicant has claimed several modules “receiver module, a skill determination module, a candidate filter module, a psychometric assessment module, a compatibility module, and a recommendation module”. With the broadest reasonable interpretation, since the modules do not comprise physical elements, they can be interpreted as software elements, i.e. printed matter. Printed matter is not statutory subject matter under 35 USC 101. As a result, the claims must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In order to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments and arguments dated 09/05/2025 necessitated the updating of the 35 USC § 101 and the withdrawal of the 35 USC § 103 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 contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov 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
Prosecution Insights