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 .
Status of Claim
This action is in response to application filed on 13 of May 2026.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 17, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 2, 10, and 18 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that the current amended claims provide an understanding and application of an amount of data beyond what may be comprehensible by a single person. (See paragraph [0022] of Applicant's specification). Therefore, the claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception and, based on the first prong of the Alice framework, the claimed invention is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Furthermore, beside abstract ideas, there are no mathematical formulas involved in the present invention as reflected by the amended claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A Prong I, the examiner is tasked with determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception, if not the claims are eligible, if yes, the examiner then analyzes whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such as using a computer system for managing stress levels based on assigned tasks. The claims are aimed at monitoring workers stress when performing various tasks in order to rebalance workload and/or increasing the number of workers in order to complete tasks. Humans have been managing workload and number of necessary workers per task/project long before the advent of computers and the Internet of Things by interacting with one another and writing down the changes, both which are deemed mental processes and managing personal behavior. The examiner notes the claims don’t disclose NLP let alone its involvement in the invention, and ¶22 cited by the applicant also lacks any mention of NLP. The claims are also silent regarding building a complex network of nodes and relationships, medical diagnosis, and querying data in order to provide secondary diagnosis. While the specification may help illuminate the true focus of a claim, when analyzing patent eligibility, reliance on the specification must always yield to the claim language in identifying that focus." Id. at 766; see also Trinity Info Media, 72 F.4th at 1363 ("Our focus is on the claims, as informed by the specification."). At bottom, we must "articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful." Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Further, calculating a stress level falls under mathematical calculations. Therefore, the claims are aimed at abstract ideas and the examiner moves on the Prong 2.
Applicant asserts that the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application of the alleged mental process by including additional elements that apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way (described by the 2019 Guidance as an example limitation indicative of integration into a practical application). Applicant submits that the steps of the claimed invention have been narrowly tailored to illustrate elements which apply and use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not disclose the steps taken by the computer system to achieve said steps. Instead, claim 1 amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using generic computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
Applicant asserts that the claims are similar to McRO in that it improves a method to obtain medical data which allows for how information can be used from a plurality of sources to build a complex network of nodes and relationships, thereby delivering a sorted list of potential paths of medical diagnosis codes and related procedural codes - in particular, main and/or secondary diagnosis codes, as well as main procedure codes, and secondary procedure codes - as a result of a query. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims at issue in McRO were found to be eligible because McRO solves a problem rooted in technology turning an abstract idea into an improvement to technology. This is not the case in the instant application as the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant’s rationale for this assertion is merely based on the fact that since McRO includes automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules, then obtaining medical data which allows for how information can be used from a plurality of sources to build a complex network of nodes and relationships will make the claims of the instant application eligible. This would only work if eligibility analysis is determined in a vacuum and is merely reliant on claim language absent any consideration of the invention as a whole as described in the original specification as filed. In McRO, the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by improving computer animation. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception. McRO provided a technological solution to an issue rooted in computer technology. Applicant’s claims do not recite the same fact pattern, in fact it is rebalancing tasks/workload based on stress levels. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Applicant asserts that applying BASCOM to amended claims, the claimed subject matter improves the technology of medical technology. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Once again, the fact pattern doesn’t support applicant’s assertions. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. Further, the examiner must also consider whether the combination of steps perform “in an unconventional way and therefore include an ‘inventive step, ’ rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B ” Id. In this part of the analysis, the examiner considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine “whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. As discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that the steps of detecting movements, the presence of operators, and gestures, is accomplished in a non-conventional way.
35 USC § 103
Upon further search and consideration, the examiner noted that the Kanojia reference teaches the amended portion of the independent claims that were rolled up from now cancelled claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-20 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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 9 recites “one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, wherein the computer system is enabled to perform: obtaining information about an occupational workload, wherein said occupational workload includes one or more tasks; extracting features of said occupational workload including said one or more tasks; assigning a task performer to each of said one or more tasks; calculating a stress level for said task performer assigned to said one or more tasks assigned; comparing said calculated stress level against one or more preselected values; generating an alert when said stress level calculated exceeds said one or more preselected values; monitoring any task performer during performance of said one or more tasks assigned and continuously recalculating said stress level during performance of said one or more tasks; and rebalancing said occupational workload when any alert is generated, wherein rebalancing can include at least one of reassigning a new task performer to one or more tasks, increasing a time allocated for completing each task or increasing number of task performers allocated to complete each task”. Claims 1 and 17 discloses similar limitations as Claim 9 as disclosed, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to “Mental Process” in particular “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”, “Mathematical Concepts” in particular “mathematical calculations”, and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in particular “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-8, 11-16, and 19-20 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 3, 9, 11, 17, and 19 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 9 and 17 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3, 11, and 19 recite additional elements “artificial intelligence engine” and machine learning model”. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 3, 9, 11, 17, and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements described above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶11-13 “COMPUTER 101 of FIG. 1 may take the form of a desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, smart phone, smart watch or other wearable computer, mainframe computer, quantum computer or any other form of computer or mobile device now known or to be developed in the future that is capable of running a program, accessing a network or querying a database, such as remote database 130. As is well understood in the art of computer technology, and depending upon the technology, performance of a computer-implemented method may be distributed among multiple computers and/or between multiple locations. On the other hand, in this presentation of computing environment 100, detailed discussion is focused on a single computer, specifically computer 101, to keep the presentation as simple as possible. Computer 101 may be located in a cloud, even though it is not shown in a cloud in Figure 1. On the other hand, computer 101 is not required to be in a cloud except to any extent as may be affirmatively indicated”.
As a result, claims 3, 9, 11, 17, and 19 do not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claims 1, 4-8, 12-16, and 20 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-17, and 19-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by the combination of US 20240144123 to Kanojia et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Kanojia”) in view of US 20200097865 to Hamilton et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Hamilton”) and in further view of US 20230051006 to Gaddam et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Gaddam”).
(A) As per Claims 1, 9, and 17:
Kanojia expressly discloses:
obtaining information about an occupational workload, wherein said occupational workload includes one or more tasks; (Kanojia ¶46 a microprocessor may have access to data storage 124 which may include calendar information for user 102 and/or user 110. For example, data storage 124 may comprise a database having a calendar record showing an employee (e.g., user 102) is scheduled to have a call with user 110, which may be known to user 102 as a difficult customer or unhappy boss).
calculating a stress level for said task performer assigned to said one or more tasks assigned; (Kanojia ¶46 server 122 may analyze the speech, documents, text, and/or other content exchanged between user 102 and user 110 to determine a subject and associate the subject with a stress level in a record written to data storage 124).
comparing said calculated stress level against one or more preselected values; (Kanojia ¶47 if a particular series of events, such as a schedule to complete a project, is known to have an aggregate stress score of the constituent events that is above a threshold for at least one user, the schedule may be recalculated such as to reassign one or more high-stress events to another user, rearrange the order of tasks so that neutral-stress/low-stress tasks are inserted between high-stress events, etc.).
monitoring any task performer during performance of said one or more tasks assigned and continuously recalculating said stress level during performance of said one or more tasks; (Kanojia ¶54, 57 as a benefit, new employees may have a set of generalized stress responses available from other sources rather than an empty set. If any one or more output signals do not apply, the neural network may be periodically, intermittently, or continuously retrained to tailor the output signals and stress indications to the new employee as more data becomes available. The neural network may be retrained continuously or intermittently, such as in response to feedback from the user. Once trained, the neural network may be provided with output signals from monitoring components, whether recorded or in real time, and determine therefrom whether the subject (e.g., user 102, user 110, etc.) is stressed during an event, such as a task).
rebalancing said occupational workload…wherein rebalancing can include at least one of reassigning a new task performer to one or more tasks, increasing a time allocated for completing each task or increasing number of task performers allocated to complete each task.(Kanojia ¶47 if a particular series of events, such as a schedule to complete a project, is known to have an aggregate stress score of the constituent events that is above a threshold for at least one user, the schedule may be recalculated such as to reassign one or more high-stress events to another user, rearrange the order of tasks so that neutral-stress/low-stress tasks are inserted between high-stress events, etc.).
Although Kanojia teaches systems and methods for automatically scheduling a resource of a system and particularly to scheduling a resource while reducing workplace stress, it doesn’t expressly disclose extract features of the job including tasks and assigning an employee to tasks, however Hamilton teaches:
extracting features of said occupational workload including said one or more tasks; assigning a task performer to each of said one or more tasks; (Hamilton ¶42 the allocation plan 36 can also be manipulated by one or more manager 32 in order to adjust the urgency of particular tasks, alter schedules, change assignments, or change queue priorities. An allocation plan is defined as the percentage of all available employees (that are skilled for a particular queue) that may be used (allocated) to handle work for this queue. In an embodiment, the allocation plan 36 can be defined for each queue on an hourly basis, while in other embodiments, other time frames may be used (e.g. 15 min)).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Kanojia’s database having a calendar record showing an employee (e.g., user 102) is scheduled to have a call with user and adjust the urgency of particular tasks, alter schedules, change assignments, or change queue priorities of Hamilton as both are analogous art which teach solutions to having a schedule to complete a project as taught in Kanojia and have the allocation plan be defined for each queue on an hourly basis, while in other embodiments as taught in Hamilton.
Although Kanojia in view of Hamilton teaches systems and methods for automatically scheduling a resource of a system and particularly to scheduling a resource while reducing workplace stress, it doesn’t expressly disclose generating an alert for when the stress level exceeds a threshold, however Gaddam teaches:
generating an alert when said stress level calculated exceeds said one or more preselected values; (Gaddam ¶70 notification unit 214 may determine, based on the stress level of patient 112 being above a threshold, to display the notification regarding the change of status of the specific aspect of healthcare provider environment 118. In other words, notification unit 214 may make a determination to cause the user interface of telemedicine facilitation application 104 to display the notification based on the stress level of being above the threshold).
…when any alert is generated…; (Gaddam ¶70 notification unit 214 may determine, based on the stress level of patient 112 being above a threshold, to display the notification regarding the change of status of the specific aspect of healthcare provider environment 118. In other words, notification unit 214 may make a determination to cause the user interface of telemedicine facilitation application 104 to display the notification based on the stress level of being above the threshold).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Kanojia in view of Hamilton’s analysis of the speech, documents, text, and/or other content exchanged between users to determine a subject and associate the subject with a stress level and display the notification regarding the change of stress status of Gaddam as both are analogous art which teach solutions to determining a subject and associate the subject with a stress level in a record written to data as taught in Kanojia in view of Hamilton and display the notification based on the stress level of being above the threshold as taught in Gaddam.
Kanojia teaches a system and a computer readable medium at least in ¶10.
(B) As per Claims 3, 11, and 19:
Kanojia expressly discloses:
wherein an artificial intelligence (AI) engine using one or more machine learning model is used; (Kanojia ¶6 n artificial intelligence (AI), such as a neural network, is trained to detect stress levels for users of the systems).
(C) As per Claims 4, 12, and 20:
Kanojia expressly discloses:
allocating at least one or more stress reducing models prior to workload rebalancing; (Kanojia ¶50 the default schedule may be recalculated to consider stressors, as discussed above, to produce a different schedule and, in doing so, a reduced stress level for one or more users. In another embodiment, the initial development of the schedule already including consideration of the stress level for the users involved and recalculation to reduce stress, described herein, are incorporated in the initial schedule).
(D) As per Claims 5 and 13:
Kanojia expressly discloses:
predicting any future event that is going to impact stress levels and rebalancing workload and task performance criteria accordingly; (Kanojia ¶47 Once a number of stress events are known for a corresponding number and/or type of events (e.g., performance review, customer call, etc.) server 122 may predict a level of stress for a future event or series of events. Such predictions may be beneficial for unscheduled events (e.g., receiving customer complaints) if the unscheduled events, at least partially, occur with regularity).
(E) As per Claims 7 and 15:
Although Kanojia in view of Hamilton and in further view of Gaddam teaches systems and methods for automatically scheduling a resource of a system and particularly to scheduling a resource while reducing workplace stress, it doesn’t expressly disclose selecting an employee based on skill set and/or availability, however Hamilton additionally teaches:
wherein said task performers are selected from a list generated based on a plurality of available task performers and their corresponding skill and availability; (Hamilton ¶106 the available employees are indexed at 104 primarily based upon the employee next availability, ranking those employees that are currently available or will become available the soonest highest within the index. In embodiments, employees may be secondarily indexed based upon a skill level by ranking the least skilled employees first).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Kanojia in view of Hamilton and in further view of Gaddam’s analysis of the speech, documents, text, and/or other content exchanged between users to determine a subject and have available employees indexed primarily based upon the employee next availability of Hamilton as both are analogous art which teach solutions to determining a subject and associate the subject with a stress level in a record written to data as taught in Kanojia in view of Hamilton and in further view of Gaddam and rank employees based upon a skill level by ranking the least skilled employees first as additionally taught in Hamilton.
(F) As per Claims 8 and 16:
Although Kanojia in view of Hamilton and in further view of Gaddam teaches systems and methods for automatically scheduling a resource of a system and particularly to scheduling a resource while reducing workplace stress, it doesn’t expressly disclose selecting an employee based on skill set and/or availability, however Hamilton additionally teaches:
wherein said task performers' skill has been determined by obtaining information about previous task performers' similar tasks completed through one or more sources; (Hamilton ¶106, 114 skill level in such an embodiment may be measured as the number of tasks or queues to which the employee is skilled or assigned to work on. After the first indexed task of either the manually assigned task or not manually assigned task are added to the list of possible tasks at 160, or in the event that no manually assigned tasks or not manually assigned tasks were identified, then at 164 a determination is made if there are any additional task queues that match an employee skill).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Kanojia in view of Hamilton and in further view of Gaddam’s analysis of the speech, documents, text, and/or other content exchanged between users to determine a subject and have skill level be measured as the number of tasks or queues to which the employee is skilled or assigned to work on of Hamilton as both are analogous art which teach solutions to determining a subject and associate the subject with a stress level in a record written to data as taught in Kanojia in view of Hamilton and in further view of Gaddam and determine if there are any additional task queues that match an employee skill as additionally taught in Hamilton.
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 extension fee 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 MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-a273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 6/26/2026
Prosecution Insights