DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This Office Action is responsive to amendment filed 17 October 2025.
Claims 1, 7, 9, and 10 are amended.
Claim 11 is added.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention
is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites acquiring first information regarding a first work breakdown structure (WBS) work package of a standard project, second information regarding a second work breakdown structure (WBS) work package of at least one other project corresponding to the standard project, and third information regarding a process diagnosis result and including one or more ratings of the at least one other project corresponding to the standard project and using the first information, the second information, and the third information, thereby creating associated information associating the first information, the second information, and the third information, wherein the process diagnosis result includes a rating result of a technical process action, a management process action, and an assist process action diagnosed in a past project which is an abstract method of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions, managing personal behavior or interactions between people).
The recited additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include acquisition circuitry, and learning control circuitry training a machine learning model regarding a WBS work package. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to
amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on
which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 2-5 and 7 describe information and thus further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 6 describes the acquisition of information and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim adds the additional element of a network which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more because the network merely serves as a generic computing component on which the abstract idea is implemented.
Claim 8 adds the additional element of a cloud server which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more because the cloud server merely serves as a generic computing component on which the abstract idea is implemented.
Claim 9 incorporates the ineligible features of claim 1 discussed above, further describes information, and thus further describes the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1 and is rejected for the substantially the same reasons. The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include training a machine learning model regarding a WBS work package. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 11 describes the generation of a WBS based on data which further describes the abstract idea. The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include learning control circuitry training the machine learning model. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the previous claim objections. The objections have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the previous claim rejections under § 112. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the previous claim rejections under § 102. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC § 101
Applicant submits that the claims “do not recite method of organizing human activity as alleged” because the claimed “solution can only be implemented in a digital networking environment . . . .” Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the collection, association, and output of information are not removed from the realm of the abstract simply by implementing such data information manipulation via computer. To the extent that a “machine learning model” is ostensibly trained in some way utilizing the collected information, the model has been identified as an additional element rather than part of the abstract idea and has been evaluated as such.
Applicant submits that the claims “integrate any judicial exception into a practical application” because “the additional elements when viewed together realize an ordered combination that limits the operations of the processor training a machine learning model to perform specific operations, including generating a WBS from a standard project and at least one other project.” Applicant also appears on pp. 8-9 to define essentially every limitation of claim 1 with the exception of the information included in the process diagnosis result as an “additional element.” This argument is unpersuasive because it misapprehends abstract data manipulation steps as additional, i.e., non-abstract elements. The only additional elements present in the bulleted passages include the generic circuitries and machine learning model which merely serve as generic computing components on which the abstract data manipulations are implemented. Applicant’s argument appears to demand 2A prong 2 and 2B analyses of the abstract itself which is misguided.
Applicant submits that the “claims recite meaningful limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea” because they “provide a unique and novel way for generating a high-accuracy WBS work package based on the rating and scoring of one or more past projects.” While Examiner does not necessarily disagree that the claimed generation of a high-accuracy WBS work package based on the rating and scoring of one or more past projects may be “unique and novel”, it is unclear from Applicant’s argument how such generation is analogous to “installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time” in Diehr or “immuniz(ing) mammalian subjects in accordance with the identified lower risk schedule” in Classen. See MPEP 2106.05(e). That is, the generation of a work breakdown structure, i.e., an abstract arrangement of information, remains abstract even if novel. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea”) (emphasis in original). Applicant’s claims appear to solve a business problem rather than a problem specifically arising from technology.
For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 JEFF ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 2:00 pm.
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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571)272-4602. 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.
JEFF ZIMMERMAN
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628