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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ex Parte Desjardins renders the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection moot since there is no 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, nor 103 rejection in the Office Action. Applicant’s reliance on Ex Parte Desjardins to assert that an analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is unnecessary is misplaced. Desjardins does not stand for the proposition that subject matter eligibility can be omitted. Instead, the decision is limited to specific facts for a particular case and does not alter the obligation of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 that is set by Congress, and further, the analysis of the created judicial exceptions to 101 by the Supreme Court. Examiner also notes that applicant’s claims and invention are nowhere similar to that of Desjardins. In Desjardins, the application is directed to the field of machine learning techniques, and the claims are aimed at specific and technically detailed ways of performing machine learning. The application was highly technical in nature with regard to specific machine learning processes. Therefore, the claims fall into the category of an improvement to a computer/technology because of the specific technical nature of the claims. The specification of the application also gave a technical explanation of the improvement related to the specific machine learning techniques. Applicant’s case not analogous to Desjardins. Applicant’s invention at best recites an improvement in the judicial exception itself. The claims and invention are drawn towards a resource operation management and collaboration enabling users to plan, track, organize, schedule, monitor, and management resources, work items, and development projects (referred to as a management and collaboration system) (see Spec. [0032]-[0035]), and the alleged improvement is not an improvement in computers or technology. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology (emphasis added). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology. Nothing in the applicant’s claims nor specification describe improving machine learning techniques, but instead using a computer to perform the limitations that has been identified as corresponding to the judicial exception. The only mention of features related to machine learning is that “…the resource operation management server 210 may leverage one or more artificial intelligence tools to review such disparate data sets and propose a resource container unit status data which an end user may be able to validate or override.” (Spec. [00102]). At best, applicant’s invention is more analogous to Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025). The Court in Recentive stated that "[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18). It’s also important to note from Recentive “…the claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that (using existing machine learning technology) they perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025), slip op. at 15. However, it is the examiner’s position that applicant’s claims are wholly unrelated to machine learning. Based on the arguments presented above, applicant’s claims do not overcome 101.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
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. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-10 recite an apparatus (i.e. machine), claims 11-18 recite a method (i.e. process), and claims 19-20 recite a computer program product (i.e. article of manufacture). Therefore claims 1-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1, 11, 19 recite the limitations: detect a resource container unit aggregation insight map interface request in response to user interaction with a [resource operational interface]; traverse an aggregation of a plurality of resource container units and disparate data sets originating from a plurality of disparate tools based on the resource container unit aggregation insight map interface request, wherein each disparate data set is associated with at least one resource container unit; generate an inferred linkage between a first resource container unit and a second resource container unit, wherein the inferred linkage defines a relationship derived from patterns identified in the traversal of the aggregation; generate a [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] comprising a plurality of resource container unit interface components based on the traversal of the aggregation, the [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] configured to visually depict at least two of the resource container unit interface components in a hierarchical mapping arrangement, wherein visually depicting at least two of the resource container unit interface components in the hierarchical mapping arrangement comprises: identifying the first resource container unit interface component as a parent resource container unit interface component based on the inferred linkage, wherein the first resource container unit interface component corresponds to the first resource container unit; identifying the second resource container unit interface component as a child resource container unit interface component to the first resource container unit interface component based on the inferred linkage, wherein the second resource container unit interface component corresponds to the second resource container unit; and causing display of a visual linkage element between the first and second resource container unit interface components to visually depict the hierarchical mapping arrangement as a parent-child hierarchical mapping arrangement; and output the [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] for rendering to the [resource operational interface], wherein the [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] provides real-time or near real-time visualization of relationships derived from disparate tools enabling resource operation management insight. The invention is drawn towards a resource operation management and collaboration enabling users to plan, track, organize, schedule, monitor, and management resources, work items, and development projects, and recites limitations that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (business relations, managing personal interactions, etc.) as evidenced by limitations detailing detect a resource container unit aggregation insight map interface request in response to user interaction with a [resource operational interface]; traverse an aggregation of a plurality of resource container units and disparate data sets originating from a plurality of disparate tools based on the resource container unit aggregation insight map interface request; generate an inferred linkage between a first resource container unit and a second resource container unit, wherein the inferred linkage defines a relationship derived from patterns identified in the traversal of the aggregation; generate a [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] comprising a plurality of resource container unit interface components based on the traversal of the aggregation, the [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] configured to visually depict at least two of the resource container unit interface components in a hierarchical mapping arrangement; causing display of a visual linkage element between the first and second resource container unit interface components to visually depict the hierarchical mapping arrangement as a parent-child hierarchical mapping arrangement; and output the [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] for rendering to the [resource operational interface], wherein the [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] provides real-time or near real-time visualization of relationships derived from disparate tools enabling resource operation management insight. The claims also recite limitations the correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing detect a resource container unit aggregation insight map interface request in response to user interaction with a [resource operational interface]; generate an inferred linkage between a first resource container unit and a second resource container unit, wherein the inferred linkage defines a relationship derived from patterns identified in the traversal of the aggregation; generate a [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] comprising a plurality of resource container unit interface components based on the traversal of the aggregation, the [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] configured to visually depict at least two of the resource container unit interface components in a hierarchical mapping arrangement; identifying the first resource container unit interface component as a parent resource container unit interface component based on the inferred linkage, wherein the first resource container unit interface component corresponds to the first resource container unit; identifying the second resource container unit interface component as a child resource container unit interface component to the first resource container unit interface component based on the inferred linkage, wherein the second resource container unit interface component corresponds to the second resource container unit; and causing display of a visual linkage element between the first and second resource container unit interface components to visually depict the hierarchical mapping arrangement as a parent-child hierarchical mapping arrangement. The claims recite an abstract idea
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above in the Step 2A Prong One section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a resource container unit aggregation insight map interface, a resource operational interface, at least one processor (claim 1), at least one memory (claim 1), and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 19). The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 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 above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes: Chhabra (US 11,616,787) which discloses a system that causes a resource accessible to a first set of entities to also be accessible to a member of a second set of entities. The system also creates a project to associate with a set of resources, associate a policy that controls access to the set of resources with the projects, associate the resource with the set of resources of the project, and associate the member of the second set of entities with the project. A request is obtained from the member of the second set of entities to access the resource and if determined to be authorized to access the resource based on the policy, the member of the second set of entities is allowed to obtain access to the resource. Plumb (2017/0289069) discloses a system with a plurality of container units, determining a selected resource unit from a set of units, and outputting the resource container unit aggregation insight map interface for rendering to the operational interface. Nixon (2018/0091516) discloses resource management system resource agents, each resource agent being a representation of at least an aspect of a resource, wherein at least one aspect of governance of each said resource agent is distributable by a first rights holder to any one or more second rights holder; and a communications interface for interfacing said platform and at least one resource-related computing device. The references do not appear to disclose the amended limitations of the applicant’s claims individually nor in combination. The claims overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes the publication “A Virtual Workspace for Distributed Design and Engineering Tasks” (Benolken, et. al.; 2010) which describes a design and evaluation of a virtual workspace for supporting the collaboration of team members in geographically distributed locations. The publication explores efficient IT tools required for the synchronization and coordination between people for conducting collaborative tasks. The references do not appear to disclose the amended limitations of the applicant’s claims individually nor in combination. The claims overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628