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
This Non-Final action is in response to the application filed on May 24, 2024, the amendments to the claims filed on September 30, 2025, and the Request for Continued Examination filed on February 4, 2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 4, 2026 has been entered.
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, 12-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-19 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 13 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 1 and product Claim 18. Claim 13 recites the limitations of generating a tag creation signal in response to receiving an actionable input in a collaborative work platform, wherein the tag creation signal is to initiate creation of a tag for being linked with a stage from amongst a plurality of stages of a workflow, and wherein each of the plurality of stages has a stage descriptor linked therewith, the stage descriptor comprising: a stage identifier uniquely identifying each stage of the workflow; and a set of actions associated with each stage of the workflow; initiating, in response to generation of the tag creation signal, acquisition of a user-defined tag content for being associated with the tag; analyzing the user-defined tag content to extract a tag descriptor corresponding to the user-defined tag content, wherein deriving the tag descriptor comprises: prompting a trained language learning model by a processor with the user-defined tag content; generating one or more responses be the trained language learning model to the prompting; and filtering the one or more responses by the processor, and wherein the tag descriptor comprising at least one of: a destination identifier uniquely identifying a target destination, from amongst a plurality of target destinations, with which the user-defined tag content is to be linked; and an action to be performed in association with the stage of the workflow; determining a correlation score between the stage descriptor linked with each of the plurality of correlated stages and the tag descriptor; converting the tag descriptor and the stage descriptor into vector forms; performing a comparison on the vector forms, wherein the correlation score indicates semantic similarity between the tag descriptor and the stage descriptor; associating, based on the correlation score exceeding a correlation threshold value, the user-defined tag content, corresponding to the tag descriptor, with a stage, from amongst the plurality of stages, having the stage descriptor correlating with the tag descriptor; and generating an alert generation signal upon initialization of the stage having the stage descriptor correlating with the tag descriptor, wherein generation of the alert generation signal is to cause an indication of the user-defined tag content associated with the stage.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Tag generation for workflow management recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (following rules or instructions)/ mathematical relationships. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (following rules or instructions)/ mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity/Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The processor in Claims 1, 13, and 18 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The tag creation signal, prompting a trained language learning model, collaborative workflow platform, converting the tag and stage descriptors into vectors, and alert generation signal in Claims 1, 13, and 18 in appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 18 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite a processor in Claims 1, 13, and 18 and tag creation signal, prompting a trained language learning model, collaborative workflow platform, converting the tag and stage descriptors into vectors, and alert generation signal in Claims 1, 13, and 18. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1, 13, and 18 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0038, 0054, 0056] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. In addition, performing the judicial exception steps using a LMM merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2105(h). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 13, and 18 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-10, 12, 15-17, and 19 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 13, and 18 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity/Mathematical Concepts and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claim 2 further include rendering a first GUI; Claims 3-6, 16, and 19 further define a visual indicator, second GUI, and the alert generation signal; Claims 7 further define the actionable item; Claims 8 and 17 further define an activation status; Claim 9, further include monitor status; Claim 10 further include a generic data repository; Claim 12 further include the use of an NPL engine. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-10, 12, 15-17, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-19 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments to the 35 USC 101 rejection of record (Remarks, pages 8-12) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant’s argument that, “the claim requires the use of a trained language learning model (LLM) to process user-defined tag content, where the processor prompts the LLM, generates responses, and filters those responses to extract a tag descriptor. These operations involve complex computational techniques, such as neural network inference and large-scale data processing, which are far beyond human cognitive capabilities” emphasis added by applicant, (Remarks, pages 8-10) is not commensurate with the scope of the claim language or the specification. There are no recitations of the use of neural networks or large-scale processing in the claims or the specification. Additionally, the specification is silent as to the capabilities of human analogs. Even assuming there was a technical problem, the claims, as written, fail to recite the details of how a technical solution to the technical problem was accomplished. If there was a technical problem (e.g., existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions) then the claims should recite the details of the technical solution (e.g., how existing technology was improved to overcome this inability). However, the claims, as written, provide no such details and merely recite that the claimed functions (i.e., the outcome) are being performed. In addition, performing the judicial exception steps using LLM merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2105(h).
Applicant’s arguments that, “the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical implementation” (Remarks, page 10), are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, the claims only recite processor in Claim 1 and tag creation signal, collaborative workflow platform, converting the tag and stage descriptors into vectors, and alert generation signal in Claims 1, 13, and 18. There are no hardware elements recited in claims 13 and 18, and therefore no additional elements within those claims to produce a practical application. Further, the processor of claim 1 is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments that, “elements of amended independent claim 1 provide an inventive concept and amounts to significantly more than exception itself” (Remarks, pages 10-12) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. In the claimed invention, the computer has not been improved. The non-technological process that the software is performing may have been improved but, according to Alice, improving the process without any technological innovation is not statutory. The computer still operates according to its known and standard capabilities. Therefore, the current claims do not purport to have a technological solution to a technological problem but rather the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
2/13/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619