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
1. This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on December 29, 2025, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted August 14, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites an apparatus for outputting a resource development generation interface component. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites an apparatus for outputting a resource development generation interface component to a resource operational interface. The claim comprises the steps: access resource unit development data representative of a plurality of refinement candidate resource unit development structures…, generate a multi-dimensional refined resource unit development structure comprising the plurality of resource unit development items, the plurality of explicit resource unit development links, and at least one predicted resource unit development link…, generate a resource development generation interface component based at least in part on the multi-dimensional refined resource unit development structure…, and output the resource development generation interface component…, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional element of “…for rendering to a resource operational interface of a computing device.” The claim also recites that the steps of “access resource unit development data representative of a plurality of refinement candidate resource unit development structures…, generate a multi-dimensional refined resource unit development structure comprising the plurality of resource unit development items, the plurality of explicit resource unit development links, and at least one predicted resource unit development link…, generate a resource development generation interface component based at least in part on the multi-dimensional refined resource unit development structure…, and output the resource development generation interface component” are performed by at least one processor.
The additional element ““…for rendering to a resource operational interface of a computing device” is mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and transmitting/receiving, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. This limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer device, improvement to the user interface, it is just merely used as a general means for collecting and displaying data. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Further, the steps of “access resource unit development data representative of a plurality of refinement candidate resource unit development structures…, generate a multi-dimensional refined resource unit development structure comprising the plurality of resource unit development items, the plurality of explicit resource unit development links, and at least one predicted resource unit development link…, generate a resource development generation interface component based at least in part on the multi-dimensional refined resource unit development structure…, and output the resource development generation interface component for rendering to a resource operational interface of a computing device”, are recited as being performed by the processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality. In the limitation “output the resource development generation interface component for rendering to a resource operational interface of a computing device”, the processor is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations “access resource unit development data representative of a plurality of refinement candidate resource unit development structures…, generate a multi-dimensional refined resource unit development structure comprising the plurality of resource unit development items, the plurality of explicit resource unit development links, and at least one predicted resource unit development link…, generate a resource development generation interface component based at least in part on the multi-dimensional refined resource unit development structure, the processor is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor, a memory, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The additional element ““…for rendering to a resource operational interface of a computing device” was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional element of “…for rendering to a resource operational interface of a computing device” is recited at a high level of generality. This element amounts to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processor to perform limitations “access resource unit development data representative of a plurality of refinement candidate resource unit development structures…, generate a multi-dimensional refined resource unit development structure comprising the plurality of resource unit development items, the plurality of explicit resource unit development links, and at least one predicted resource unit development link…, generate a resource development generation interface component based at least in part on the multi-dimensional refined resource unit development structure…, and output the resource development generation interface component”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claims 13 and 20, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 13 directed to a method, independent claim 20 directed to a medium, are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 1.
Regarding dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 14, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein determining the predicted resource unit development link comprises…perform a resource unit development refinement operation, that fall under the category of Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 3 and 15, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein performing a resource unit development refinement operation comprises…access external enterprise resource operation data; parse the textural enterprise resource operation data…, determine a resource unit development configuration structure…, and determine the predicted resource unit development link…, that fall under the category of Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 4 and 16, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the predicted resource unit development link is determined using a resource unit development link prediction model, that fall under the category of Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Moreover, “prediction model” is directed to mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, falls within “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 5, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the resource development generation interface component is generated based at least in part on an operations resource generation query, that fall under the category of Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 6 and 17, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the plurality of resource unit development items comprises one or more of a resource unit development project identifier item…, that fall under the category of Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 7, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting identify a new explicit resource unit development link, and generate an updated muti-dimensional refined resource unit development structure…, that fall under the category of Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 8 and 18, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting identify a new resource unit development link, and generate an updated muti-dimensional refined resource unit development structure…, that fall under the category of Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 9 and 19, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting cause one or more resource development unit implementation allocation…, that fall under the category of Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 10, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting modify one or more resource unit access permissions…, that fall under the category of Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 11, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting transmit one or more resource development unit action notifications…, that fall under the category of Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 12, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting generate, based at least in part on the multi-dimensional refined resource unit development structure, one or more of a resource development individual generation interface component……, that fall under the category of Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
6. No prior arts were applied to the claims because the Examiner is unaware of any prior arts, alone or in combination, which disclose at least the limitations of “generate a multi-dimensional refined resource unit development structure comprising the plurality of resource unit development items, the plurality of explicit resource unit development links, and at least one predicted resource unit development link, wherein generating the multi-dimensional refined resource unit development structure comprises determining the at least one predicted resource unit development link; and generate a resource development generation interface component based at least in part on the multi-dimensional refined resource unit development structure, wherein the resource development generation interface component comprises at least one of the plurality of resource unit development items, wherein generating the resource development generation interface component comprises selecting the at least one of the plurality of resource unit development items based at least in part on the at least one predicted resource unit development link” recited in the independent claims 1, 13, and 20.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
7. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more (see more details above).
Applicant’s arguments regarding to 101 rejection do not state why the claims are not abstract idea (i.e., where in the specification identifies improvements in technology and how claims reflects the identified improvement. Ex Parte Desjardins) but appear to be addressing 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, & 112 which were not part of the Office action.
Therefore, the 101 rejection based on abstract idea is maintained.
Conclusion
8. 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 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 date of this final action.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
10. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fuksmane et al. (US 2025/0111337) disclose apparatus and methods for outputting a prioritized actionable item insight interface component to a project management user interface in a project management and collaboration system
Lillie et al. (US 2021/0065576) disclose a system and methods for the intelligent onboarding, support, education of supervised resource account users.
Martinovic et al. (US 2014/0136294) disclose methods and systems for providing a user interface for specifying details of a development project.
LaComb et al. (US 2004/0138933) disclose developing an interface that enables a user to interact with the implemented model.
Donelan et al. (US 2002/0055832) disclose a configuration of a structured system for the planning, integration, analysis and management of new product development on a real-time, enterprise-wide basis.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 January 10, 2026