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 Claims
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 18 June 2026 has been entered.
This action is in reply to the entered RCE.
Claims 1-15 were previously canceled.
Claims 16, 21, 24, 27, 28, 33 and 35 have been amended.
Claims 16-35 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the objections previously raised. Those objections are respectfully withdrawn.
The amendments are insufficient to overcome the 101 rejections previously raised regarding claims 16-32. Those rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
The amendments are sufficient to overcome the 101 rejections of claims 33-35 and the 103 rejections previously raised. Those rejections are respectfully withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 18 June 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101, applicant argues that the claims include graph traversal operations that cannot be performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, applicant argues that the computer implemented user graphs are stored in a graph data store and indexed by identifiers and that the system must retrieve a specific user graph from a graph store and is not a mental process. This argument is more specific than the limitations set forth in the claim. The claim describes that the graphs are stored in a data store but does not establish a retrieval process. Thus this none functional descriptive material that does not limit the implementation of the identifying function. The claim actively recites identifying from a plurality of stored data, which given its broadest reasonable interpretation includes a user merely making an observation.
Applicant further argues that the claim describes how the walk is performed. The claim amendments describe steps for performing a walk however there is no meaningful link with or implementation by explicitly recited additional elements. The claims do not describe any additional element or integration of elements that perform the claimed functions for selecting, traversing, accessing, disregarding or determining. Thus a human user could make the same observations and evaluations mentally or manually, these steps are merely instructions performed by a processor.
Making identifications of clusters by way of performing a walk of the user graph is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application. Lexicography is not invoked with regards to “performing a walk of the user graph” and therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations is applied and an identification is made by reviewing a graph in a step by step manner. This step is merely performed by the computing system with no further meaningful integration that limits the implementation of the step. The use of a computer in a generalized fashion does not meaningfully limit the otherwise abstract claims. In order for the addition of the machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed function to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved.
Applicant’s argument that there is metadata-based temporal filtering during traversal is more specific than the limitations set forth in the claim. There is no filtering claimed, the ability to compare nodes to time based criteria to make a decision to disregard does not necessarily require computer implementation. The use of a computer in a generalized fashion or to execute instructions does not meaningfully limit the otherwise abstract claims. In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting the solution to be achieved more quickly, as is the case here. The 101 rejection is respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
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 16-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1 and 27 recite limitations for identifying a user graph, identifying clusters of topic nodes where the topic nodes are associated with application activities, performing a walk of the user graph comprising selecting a topic node, traversing edges connecting the seed node to a second level node, accessing metadata, disregarding the entity node when not within a period of time, determining a type of document, determining a manner of access and determining an activity performed, computing scores for the productivity areas based on types of activities, a number of times the activities were performed and weights assigned to each activity, and assigning rankings. These limitations, as drafted, illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. But for the “computer-implemented” language, the claims encompass a user simply making identifications, following connections, making decisions/selections/disregarding/determining and observations/traversing/accessing, computing a score and determining a ranking as a series of observations and evaluations that could be performed the same way mentally or manually with pen and paper . The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer implemented environment does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements including causing graphical data to be display, a processor and memory, as well as the language reciting that the other steps are “computer-implemented”. The causing graphical data to be presented on a display where the GUI comprises regions is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. The claims do not specify how the accessing is performed, so even if it was performed by a computer or explicitly recited additional element it would be considered insignificant extra solution activity since it would be mere data gathering. The processor and memory that can execute instructions to implement the other steps in the computer environment are also recited at a high level of generality and merely automate those steps. Each of the additional components is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in a generic computer environment. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception in a generic computer environment with generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or linking the steps to a generic computer environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the causing to be presented on a display step that was considered extra solution activity in step 2A above, this has been re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the system components are anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs. court decisions in MPEP 2106.05 indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Dependent claims 17-26 and 28-32 include all of the limitations of the independent claims and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims merely narrow the recited abstract idea by describing additional observation and evaluation steps including determinations, comparing scores to thresholds, describe that the score is composed of sub scores, generating suggestions, computations using time and weights, describe the activities for a productivity area, describe following the connections in a graph by selecting, traversing, and making determinations, describing the productivity areas and clustering techniques, scores repeating the steps for a second user and graphs, and computing a third score.. The additional elements recited fail to transform the claims into a patent eligible invention but instead describe additional “apply it” type language in a generic environment and extra solution displaying that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as set forth above.
Accordingly, claims 16-32 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-35 are considered directed to allowable subject matter. The amendment claims sufficiently overcome the 101 through a series of layered functional interactions with specifically recited additional elements therefore integrating the recited abstract idea into a practical application and are distinguishable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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 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 for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (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 USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights