DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s Response filed November 17, 2025. Claim 1 is amended, and claim 11 is canceled. Currently, claims 1–10 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 17, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
With respect to the previous rejection of claims 1–10 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first asserts that the claims embody an improvement in the displayed user interface and achieve a practical application by including the claimed limitations. Examiner disagrees and notes that Applicant’s remarks amount to no more than a general allegation of patentability without any supporting argument or explanation. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
However, even if Applicant provided an underlying rationale in support of Applicant’s assertion that the claims embody an improvement in the displayed user interface, Examiner disagrees. First, Examiner notes that the claims do not recite a user interface. Instead, claim 1 merely recites a display and an element to “display … on the display”. Further, neither the claims nor the Specification disclose any improvements in display or interface technology. Instead, the claims and Specification disclose the display conventionally (See e.g., Spec ¶ 18).
With respect to Applicant’s statements that the claims achieve a practical application, Examiner notes that Applicant’s assertion relies on elements identified as abstract under Step 2A Prong One. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive because abstract claim elements are not additional elements capable of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (See e.g., MPEP 2107(a)).
Applicant’s remaining arguments are directed to amended language, which is addressed for the first time herein. Examiner submits that Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
However, to the extent that Applicant submits that natural language processing distinguishes the automated method from any abstract method performed by humans. Examiner disagrees. As asserted below, the recited natural language processing does no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment because the claimed NLP elements are recited generically and do not embody any improvements in natural language processing technology. Similarly, the Specification does not disclose any improvements in natural language processing technology. As a result, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained and reasserted below.
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 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–10 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements to “based on conversation data in a chat system, acquire a number of mentions, the chat system being used by an organization constituted of a plurality of teams, the number of mentions being provided by an evaluation target member to each of the plurality of teams within a first period, the evaluation target member being a member of one of the plurality of teams”; “based on the number of mentions provided by the evaluation target member to each of the plurality of teams, calculate a first proportion that is a proportion between the number of mentions provided by the evaluation target member to each of the plurality of teams and a total number of mentions”; “based on a relationship between a second proportion and a second indicator value, estimate a first indicator value corresponding to the first proportion, the second proportion being a proportion of a number of mentions provided by one member among a plurality of members of the organization to each of the plurality of teams within a second period previous to the first period, the second indicator value being indicative of work engagement representative of a work-related state of mind of the one member among the plurality of members, the first indicator value being indicative of work engagement of the evaluation target member”; “based on the conversation data, perform a determination of one or more persons that receives the mention regardless of whether the mention has a destination with an @ sign”; and “count the number of mentions based on a result of the determination.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for evaluating worker conversations to estimate worker metrics. Further, the identified elements recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. Finally, the elements to “calculate” and “estimate” recite mathematical concepts because the elements recite mathematical calculations. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2–10 further describe the process for evaluating worker conversations to estimate worker metrics and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–10 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 under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a display, processing circuitry, and elements to “display … on the display” and “carry out natural language processing”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the elements to “display” and “carry out natural language processing” do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–3 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include “a trained model trained by machine learning” in claim 2 and functionality to “generate the trained model by causing a model to learn training data by machine learning” in claim 3. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the machine learning and natural language processing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 2–3 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 4–10 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 4–10 depend. As a result, claims 4–10 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
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 under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a display, processing circuitry, and elements to “display … on the display” and “carry out natural language processing”. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the elements to “display” and “carry out natural language processing” do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. 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, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–3 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include “a trained model trained by machine learning” in claim 2, and functionality to “generate the trained model by causing a model to learn training data by machine learning” in claim 3. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the machine learning and natural language processing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. 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 2–3 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 4–10 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 4–10 depend. As a result, claims 4–10 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623