DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicants application filing received on July 26, 2024. Claim(s) 1-10 is/are currently pending in the instant application. The Application claims priority to Indian applications IN 20241002270 and IN 20231051200 filed on January 11, 2024 and July 29, 2023 respectively.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicants filing of IDS references on 7/26/2024. The references have been considered at this time. A copy of the annotated IDS sheet is included in this correspondence.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the 150 word maximum. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings are have come through with light gray lines and fuzzy words and are not of sufficient quality for easy reading.
PNG
media_image1.png
430
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
656
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
632
596
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-10 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system or “apparatus”, method or “process”, or product or “article of manufacture” and is an automated interactive task collaboration and management system which is a process (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
i) a user-interface developed to be installed on multiple computing units 102, wherein said interface is accessed by different users/organizations via said computing units 102 to execute different tasks;
ii) an input peripheral 103 inbuilt in said interface that is accessed by said users/organizations for providing input regarding a set of details for creating a profile on said interface, wherein said interface is pre-fed with options concerning tasks related to work management and learning, out of which said user selects a required task;
iii) a processing unit 101 configured with said interface for processing said user's selection and accordingly displays relevant sub-options to allow said user to select any of said displayed sub-options to proceed with, wherein in case said selected option corresponds to work management, said processing unit 101 allocates a co-worker with a unique identification number (AlN), for said user in view of guiding said user regarding development of varying kinds of pre-programmed bots to automate said user's task, wherein each of said bots are incorporated with a user-interactive feed for allowing said user to feed in details that serves as basic parameter for executing said user's task;
iv) a decision making module operated by one of processors configured with said processing unit 101 for assigning a required kinds of bots to said co-worker in view of automating said user's task, wherein each of said assigned bots are developed for performing an individual task, wherein in case said selected sub-options corresponds to projects delivery, said module in sync with said processing unit 101 coordinates requirements of said project and accordingly assigns/re-assigns specific bots to be involved for working on said user's project in order to optimize results for delivery of the project;
v) a server 106 linked with said processing unit 101 for generating a list of concerned faculty or designated official available for interacting with said user regarding said user-selected task, in case said user-selected option corresponds to learning or initiating meetings/trainings, wherein based on said user's selection, said processing unit 101 creates an animated character of said user-selected faculty/official by accessing an online available 3D character generating protocol, in view of enhancing audio-visual experience of said user for better understanding and communication; and
vi) an audio controller 105 integrated with said interface and linked with said computing unit's audio peripheral for allowing real-time communication of said user with said character, wherein said processing unit 101 is encrypted with Natural Language Processing (NLP) that initiates conversion of said character's language into said user's language to promote healthy communication between said user and character, in case said user selected option corresponds to learning or conducting meetings/trainings.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Providing inputs creating a profile with options related to tasks, selecting work management and automating human tasks, making decisions and assigning automation to optimize project results, connecting and communication with faculty or officials, and communicating teaching/learning or meetings and training recites managing personal behavior or relationships. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The one or more computing units, input peripherals, user interface, a server and an audio controller in Claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The decision module in Claim 1 appears to be just software. (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 the user interface, multiple computing units, input peripheral, processing unit, server, and audio controller (Claim 1). 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 claim 1 is 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. [0028, 0029] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices ([0028] a block diagram representing components associated with the proposed system is illustrated, respectively comprising a processing unit (multiple processors) 101, a computing unit 102, an input peripheral 103, a communication module (GSM) 104, an audio controller 105, a server 106 and memory unit (RAM, ROM) 107 associated with the processing unit 101. [0029] The system comprises of a user-interface that represents an operating user-interactive platform installed on multiple computing units 102, wherein the computing units 102 includes a smartphone, laptop, tablet or any electronic gadget supporting the operating platform.) and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. 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 claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-10 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. 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. The dependent claims include steps or processes which are similar to that disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(d), (f), (g), and/or (h) which include activities and functions the courts have determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner, or as insignificant extra solution activity, or as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Claim 2 is directed to communications with faculty/officials for personalized learning or training which falls into MPEP 2106.05(d)II. i) 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) and 206.05(f)(2) v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claim 3 is similar to MPEP2106.05(f)(2) v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claim 4 is directed to MPEP2106.05(d)II. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Claim 5 and 6 are covered under MPEP2106.05(f)(2) i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Claim 7, 8, and 10 are directed to generic computer hardware;
Claim 9 is similar to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Therefore, the claims 2-10 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-10 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art generally refers to automation systems including associated methods and design.
WO 2025/144462 A1: A computing system performs automated tasks within a digital environment by causing a large language model (LLM) to generate computer-readable code that is executable by the computer system to perform the tasks. The computing system causes the LLM to generate a transcript of code to perform a task within a digital environment, where the task includes a plurality of operations to be performed within the digital environment. The LLM is configured to stream the computer-readable code to the transcript as the code is generated. The computing system iteratively manipulates strings within the transcript to generate executable portions of the computer-readable code from partially streamed outputs from the LLM. The computing system sequentially executes the generated executable portions of the computer-readable code to cause a preview of each of the plurality of operations to be sequentially output to the digital environment.
U.S. Publication 2025/0061285 A1; Systems and methods are disclosed for selection operations for improving quality of Artificial Intelligence responses. The operations include accessing an application that employs AI functionality, receiving from a user, via the application, a query for which a response is sought from an AI agent, analyzing the query for determining a context, based on the context, selecting a particular AI agent from a pool of a plurality of AI agents, to which the query should be sent for response, and directing the query to the selected AI agent.
U.S. Publication 2025/0217116 A1; A computing system stores representations of states of user interactions with an artificial intelligence assistant to enable the interactions to be resumed at any point. The system inputs a series of instructions to a large language model (LLM) to generate computer-readable code for performing tasks within a digital environment, where the code is executable by the system to perform the tasks. The system generates a transcript including the instructions in the series of instructions and corresponding computer-readable code generated by the LLM. The system stores a representation of each of a plurality of states of the transcript, wherein each state includes a portion of the transcript that corresponds to a task. A stored representation of a first state is accessed, and computer-readable code associated with the first state is executed, using a context of the environment corresponding to the first state, to reperform a corresponding task in the digital environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
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 at (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 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.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 December 19, 2025
Prosecution Insights