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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 March 2026 has been entered.
This Continued Examination Office Action is in reply to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 20 March 2026.
Claims 1-5, 6-15, and 17-19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 20 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection for Claims 1-20, Applicants argue that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Commensurate with the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG), the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update”) and updated with the addition of new Examples 47-49 published July 2024, the claims are continued analyzed based on these new guidelines and is further detailed below in the maintained rejection under 35 USC 101.
Regarding the current prior art rejection under Bower et al. (Bower) (US 2019/0216392) and Bower in view of Groenewegen et al. (Groenewegen) (US 2023/0141807), Applicants’ amendments have overcome this previous rejection.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process:
Step 1: Claims 1-20 are each focused to a statutory category of invention namely “system; method” sets.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1-20 recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely, the claims as a whole encompass processing information by monitoring user interactions, recording content, determining goal relevance, clustering content, and updating a data structure from representative Claim 1 below as:
“monitoring a plurality of user interactions with one or more computing devices;
automatically recording a plurality of content items from a plurality of different content sources accessed via the one or more computing devices;
automatically determining whether one or more of the plurality of content items are related to a goal to be accomplished by a user, wherein the goal is associated with one or more tasks for completing the goal, and wherein the goal is associated with a data structure representing the goal, the data structure comprising one or more elements representing the one or more tasks and relationships between at least some of the elements, wherein automatically determining whether the one or more of the plurality of content items are related to the goal comprises:
determining the one or more of the plurality of content items are related to an existing goal, comprising determining a similarity between a representation of the one or more of the plurality of content items and a representation of content associated with the data structure representing the existing goal;
or determining the one or more of the plurality of content items are related to a new goal, comprising clustering the plurality of content items based on similarity among representations of respective content items;
based on determining the one or more of the plurality of content items are related to the goal, automatically determining whether the one or more of the plurality of content items indicate an update to the goal;
responsive to determining the one or more of the plurality of content items indicate the update to the goal, automatically updating the data structure representing the goal based on the one or more of the plurality of content items; and automatically updating a progress of the goal by updating, in the data structure a progress attribute for at least one of the elements representing a task of the one or more tasks”
The claims as a whole recite certain groupings under the categories:
Certain methods of organizing human activity –managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The core of the claim is analyzing data to determine a "goal" and updating a "data structure" based on that goal. According to USPTO guidance and case law, automating mental processes or managing personal, daily tasks (like "setting a goal" and "creating new tasks") is considered a fundamental, conceptual, or economic practice that falls under the abstract idea exception similar to organizing information or managing personal goals (an aspect of organizing activity). It focuses on automating user goal tracking, which is a conceptual, non-physical task.
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The limitations regarding "determining whether the content is related to the goal," "determining whether the content conflicts," and "automatically revising a node" are classified as Mental Processes. A human can observe user interactions (monitoring), evaluate if they relate to a goal (determining relationship), judge if there is a conflict (determining conflict), and update a list of tasks (revising a node/updating a progress of the goal). Goal-oriented tracking is a mental process often carried out by humans without a computer. Even though performed "automatically" by a computer, the underlying logic is a mental process.
See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components.
Prong Two: Claims 1-20: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claims 1, 11, 17 recite additional elements directed to “at least one processor; computing devices; memory storing instructions” (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶’s 18, 90-105). Therefore, the claims contain computer components that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claims likely qualify as an improvement to computer functionality if the clustering and dynamic update mechanism improves how the computer manages data, rather than just automating a human’s cognitive process. The claims are interpreted as "using a computer to help a human keep track of their tasks" (purely abstract), and fails this step of the analysis. However, if the claims are interpreted as "a specific algorithmic method of clustering multi-source content to automatically restructure a database" (technical solution), it may pass Step 2A. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h).
Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 1-20 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 nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of “at least one processor; computing devices; memory storing instructions”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
The Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶’s 18, 90-105) regarding using existing computer processors as well as program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored. “system 100” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit and display data) and/or use computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Adjaoute (US 2015/0206214)
De Beer et al. (US 12047359)
Howley (WO 2017/023386 A2)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights