DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is responsive to the amendments and remarks received on November 18, 2025.
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 without significantly more.
At step 1, claim 1 is directed to a system, claim 8 is directed to a method, and claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory medium. Each claim is directed to a statutory category.
At step 2A prong II, claim 1 (exemplary) recites a judicial exception. The limitations of claim 1 that recite the judicial exception are:
generating a decision tree comprising one or more nodes;
displaying the decision tree;
receiving a first selection of a first node, the first selection related to an employment inquiry;
receiving a second selection of a second node, the second selection relating to a geographical preference associated with the employment inquiry;
dynamically modifying the decision tree such that the one or more nodes are limited to a subset of nodes related to the employment inquiry and the geographical preference;
receiving a third selection of a preferred node of the subset of nodes;
dynamically modifying the decision tree such that the decision tree is limited to the preferred node and a corresponding at least one branch; and
displaying the modified decision tree limited to the preferred node and the corresponding at least one branch.
These limitations constitute a Mental Process. A person could easily draw a decision tree, receive information, and modify the tree accordingly. Additionally, these limitations fall into the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, as they pertain to fundamental economic principles or practices, specifically commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior, and following rules or instructions.
At step 2A prong II, the additional elements are: one or more processors, via a graphical user interface, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality, such that they amount to no more than using the words “apply it.” These elements do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At step 2B, the additional elements are analyzed, both individually and in combination, to determine if the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. The processors, computer readable medium, and graphical user interface, as discussed above, are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality, such that they amount to no more than using the words “apply it.” They do not, individually or in combination, serve to take the abstract idea beyond the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 16 are ineligible.
When analyzing the dependent claims, claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 19, and 20 do not include additional
elements but only further limit the abstract idea, and so are also ineligible. Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9-11, 14, 15,
17, and 18 contain additional elements. Claims 2, 7, 9, 15, 17 discloses a declarative knowledge base,
claim 3, 7, 10, 11, 18 discloses a declarative application programming interface, claim 6, 14 discloses a
dynamic dashboard. Each of these are generic computer components recited at a high level of
generality, such that they amount to no more than using the words "apply it." As above, they do not
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are ineligible as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimitrova et al. (US 2023/0274809) in view of Thexton et al. (US 2019/0260752).
With reference to claims 1, 8, 16, Dimitrova et al. teaches a system comprising:
one or more processors implementing instructions for (see Figure 20):
generating a decision tree comprising one or more nodes (see paragraph 139, operation 702);
displaying the decision tree via a graphical user interface (see paragraph 152 and Figure 9, provider portal GUI);
receiving, via the graphical user interface, a first selection of a first node (see paragraph 153, 155, selecting steps within a clinical pathway);
receiving, via the graphical user interface, a second selection of a second node (see paragraph 153, 155, selecting steps within a clinical pathway, steps 919A-H indicating multiple nodes in a pathway being selected);
dynamically modifying the decision tree such that the one or more nodes are limited to a subset of nodes (see paragraph 155, decision nodes 919A-H display a visual path through the graph 915 reflecting selected steps);
receiving, via the graphical user interface, a third selection of a preferred node of the subset of nodes (see paragraph 153, 155, selecting steps within a clinical pathway, steps 919A-H indicating multiple nodes in a pathway being selected);
dynamically modifying the decision tree such that the decision tree is limited to the preferred node and a corresponding at least one branch (see paragraph 153, 155, selecting steps within a clinical pathway, steps 919A-H indicating multiple nodes in a pathway being selected); and
displaying, via the graphical user interface, the modified decision tree limited to the preferred node and the corresponding at least one branch (see paragraphs 155, 156, visual path of selected steps, and history pane 916 showing all selected steps corresponding to a respective pathway arm that has been walked through).
Dimitrova et al. fails to teach:
the first selection related to an employment inquiry; and
the second selection relating to a geographical preference associated with the employment inquiry.
Thexton et al. teaches:
the first selection related to an employment inquiry (see paragraph 61 and Figure 5, capability description relating to the employment inquiry); and
the second selection relating to a geographical preference associated with the employment inquiry (see paragraph 61 and Figure 5, country name subsequent to capability description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that while Dimitrova teaches using a decision tree for making medical decisions, the tree format could be used for other types of decision making as well, including the employment inquiry decision making as taught by Thexton. It therefore would have been obvious to combine the functionality of employment inquiry and location of Thexton with Dimitrova, to allow the user to conduct an employment inquiry using efficient management tools and visual interface.
With reference to claim 2, 9, 17, Dimitrova et al. and Thexton et al. teach the system of claim 1, and Dimitrova et al. further comprising a declarative knowledge base configured to receive data input via a decision table (see paragraph 69, knowledgebase).
With reference to claim 3, 11, Dimitrova et al. and Thexton et al. teach the system of claim 1, and Dimitrova et al. further teaches comprising a declarative application programming interface (see paragraph 52, API).
With reference to claim 4, 5, 12, 13, 19, Dimitrova et al. and Thexton et al. teach the system of claim 1, 3, and Dimitrova et al. further teaches wherein modifying the decision tree such that the decision tree is limited to the preferred node, further comprises removing or greying out unrelated nodes and branches (see paragraph 155 and Figure 9, a visual path is indicated and can be seen to be bolder than other paths, i.e. other paths appear greyed out).
With reference to claim 6, 14, 20, Dimitrova et al. and Thexton et al. teach the system of claim 1, and Dimitrova et al. further teaches wherein a dynamic dashboard is configured to prompt a user for the specific data needed (see Figure 9), and Thexton et al. further teaches for the employment inquiry (see paragraph 61).
Combined under the same rationale as above.
With reference to claim 7, 15, Dimitrova et al. and Thexton et al. teach the system of claim 1, and Dimitrova et al. further teaches wherein a declarative knowledge base is configured to identify data it needs to respond to the inquiry and further responsively modify a dynamic dashboard to prompt a user for the data (see paragraph 188, step 1608 prompts the user to enter missing data needed for the knowledge base that populates the decision tree) and Thexton et al. further teaches for the employment inquiry (see paragraph 61).
Combined under the same rationale as above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Applicant argues that because the claim involves using a graphical user interface and manipulating a decision tree through the graphical user interface, that this is not Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. However, as noted previously and above, the first abstract idea identified is a mental process. As noted, a person using pen an paper could create and dynamically modify a decision tree. Implementing the decision tree on a graphical user interface does no more than append the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. There is no technical improvement to either the decision tree process or the graphical user interface itself, therefore it amounts to applying the abstract idea on a generic computer. In addition to the mental processes grouping, the claims amount to managing personal behavior (decision making in an employment process) as well as following rules (selecting items and modifying the decision tree accordingly). While the claims may not exactly align with examples given in the MPEP, this does not preclude them from being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant further argues that the claims require dynamically manipulating branches and nodes on a graphical user interface, which constitutes a practical application in and of itself. Applicant has not identified how any of this is technical in nature, is an improvement to the computer itself, or has support in the specification for solving a technical problem. Absent this evidence, this argument is not persuasive.
In light of the new grounds of 103 rejection above, the prior art arguments are moot.
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 ILANA L SPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7537. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5350. 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.
/ILANA L SPAR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622