DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to original communications filed August 28, 2025. Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 17–18 are amended, and claims 2, 9, and 16 are canceled. Currently, claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claims 16–17 for informalities. Accordingly, the previous objection to claims 16–17 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
With respect to the previous rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Examiner notes that Applicant’s remarks are directed to amended subject matter, which is addressed for the first time herein. Accordingly, Examiner directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. More particularly, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn for the same reasons as stated on page 5 of the Notice of Allowance mailed on October 20, 2023 in parent application 17/266,972.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As amended, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “accessing content of a service provider that is distributed across multiple remote sources using the online model”. Paragraph 70 of Applicant’s Specification indicates that entries in the spot database “are generated by processing of content from sources other than corpus text” and discloses that processing is done using models. Further, paragraphs 96–97 of Applicant’s Specification disclose extracting content from a source prior to training the online model. In view of the above, Applicant’s Specification discloses accessing content across multiple remote sources prior to processing the accessed content using a model. As a result, the Specification does not disclose accessing multiple remote sources using the online model, and the amended subject matter constitutes new matter. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 3–7, 10–14, and 17–20, which depend from claims 1, 8, and 15, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 3–7, 10–14, and 17–20 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–20 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 for “accessing content of a service provider”; “extracting a topic from the content of the service provider”; “mapping the extracted topic to a category of a corpus as a vector representative of the extracted topic”; “selecting the mapped topic from the topics”; “updating a skill rating of the service provider, based on the selected topic, for a category corresponding to the selected topic”; “identifying a topic that the service provider currently services based on the vector representative of the extracted topic”; and “identifying a topic that is related to the topic that the service provider currently services based on a comparison of the vector representative of the extracted topic to a vector representative of the topic that is related to the topic that the service provider currently services.”
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 managing service provider skills. Further, the elements recite a mental process because the elements recites observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 8 and 15 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 3–7, 10–14, and 17–20 further describe the process for managing service provider skills and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or a mental process for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 3–7, 10–14, and 17–20 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 under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a spot database, a topics database, a provider database, and elements for training an online model, accessing content that is distributed across multiple remote sources using the online model, extracting … using the online model, and storing [in a database]. 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; the model elements and functionality do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment; and the step for “storing” is an insignificant extrasolution activity to the recited abstract idea. 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.
As noted above, claims 8 and 15 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 8 further includes a computer-readable medium and processor, and claim 15 further includes one or more computer-readable storage media and one or more processors, the additional elements, when considered in view of the claims as a whole, 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. As a result, claims 8 and 15 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 3, 7, 10, 14, and 20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a display (claims 3, 7, 10, 14, and 20). 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 additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 3, 7, 10, 14, and 20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 4–6, 11–13, and 17–19 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 4–6, 11–13, and 17–19 depend. As a result, claims 4–6, 11–13, and 17–19 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 spot database, a topics database, a provider database, and elements for training an online model, accessing content that is distributed across multiple remote sources using the online model, extracting … using the online model, and storing [in a database]. 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; the model elements and functionality do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment; and the step for “storing” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which identifies storing information in memory as a conventional computer function. 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.
As noted above, claims 8 and 15 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 8 further includes a computer-readable medium and processor, and claim 15 further includes one or more computer-readable storage media and one or more processors, the additional element does 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. 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 8 and 15 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 3, 7, 10, 14, and 20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a display (claims 3, 7, 10, 14, and 20). 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. 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 3, 7, 10, 14, and 20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 4–6, 11–13, and 17–19 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 4–6, 11–13, and 17–19 depend. As a result, claims 4–6, 11–13, and 17–19 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B 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, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–2 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,977 in view of Rapaport et al. (U.S. 2010/0205541).
Claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,977 disclose every element of pending claims 1, 8, and 15 except for the element reciting “accessing content that is distributed across multiple remote sources using the online model”.
However, Rapaport discloses accessing content that is distributed across multiple remote sources using the online model (See paragraph 78, in view of paragraph 67, wherein content produced by external sources is gathered by system sensors and accessed by adaptive and statistical models).
Claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,977 discloses a system directed to identifying topics by analyzing content. Rapaport discloses a system directed to clustering users by analyzing content to identify topics. Each reference discloses a system directed to identifying topics by analyzing content. The technique of accessing content that is distributed across multiple remote sources using the online model is applicable to the system of claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,977 as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to identifying topics by analyzing content.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Rapaport would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Rapaport to the teachings of claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,977would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate topic identification into similar systems. Further, applying distributed source content access to claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,977would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
With respect to claims 3–4, 6–7, 10–11, 13–14, 17, and 19–20, claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,977 disclose every claimed element. As a result, claims 3–4, 6–7, 10–11, 13–14, 17, and 19–20 are rejected over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,977 in view of Rapaport et al. (U.S. 2010/0205541) for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.
With respect to claims 5, 12, and 18, Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,977 discloses every element of pending claims 5, 12, and 18. As a result, claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,977 in view of Rapaport et al. (U.S. 2010/0205541) for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this 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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
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