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 reply to the application filed on 28 of February 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior application no 17/867,395, filed 07/18/2022, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or division. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are objected to as being currently rejected as below, but would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer is filed in order to overcome the Double Patenting rejection. The prior art of record most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention includes Lim et. al. (US 20230368225), Ghoshal et. al. (US 20210090104), Yan et. al. (US 20220147900), and Umar et. al. (100-day Employee On-Boarding Program).
Lim teaches dynamic restriction of a viewer's access to survey responses provided by respondents of a survey based on the viewer's relationship with each respondent. In an example embodiment, the disclosed technology can: generate a survey data object that specifies a set of participants and a set of delegates associated with a survey; define, for a delegate in the set of delegates, a data access rule that specifies a subset of participants in the set of participants that are constituents of the delegate; receive, from the delegate, a request to access survey response data; evaluate the data access rule to identify the constituents of the delegate; filter the survey response data to extract constituent response data corresponding to the constituents of the delegate; and/or return the constituent response data to the delegate.
Ghoshal teaches a system and method for conducting an adaptive survey. The method includes transmitting a first survey to a primary respondent; receiving responses to the first survey from the primary respondent; transmitting a subsequent survey to secondary respondents, the subsequent survey including answers provided in the first survey; and receiving responses to the subsequent survey from the secondary respondents.
Yan teaches an example method of employee experience and efficiency evaluation based on the employee's collaboration circles comprises: identifying, by a computer system, based on processing a plurality of documents reflecting communications of a specified person, a collaboration circle of the specified person; generating, based on a set of previously collected responses reflecting experience and efficiency of the employee, a set of questions with respect to experience and efficiency of the employee; presenting the set of questions to a plurality of persons comprised by the collaboration circle; collecting responses to the set of questions from the plurality of persons comprised by the collaboration circle; and generating a dashboard reflecting the collected responses.
Umar teaches an induction program to provide new employees both theoretical and practical knowledge needed to perform well in their new job and satisfy their social needs.
None of the above prior art explicitly teaches “effectuate presentation of an instance of a graphical user interface on a computing platform associated with the new user, the instance of the graphical user interface displaying the subset of role-specific prompts” and “provide a record for the new user based on the response information, the record being provided such that first user information and/or first work unit information in the record is adapted based on the response information”, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12/288,171. Although the independent claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons: They both are aimed at providing autonomous vehicle access to user calendars in order to schedule a pick-up time before a start of the virtual meeting and scheduling a drop-off after an end of the virtual meeting without the need for user interaction with calendar prompts.
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 1-20 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.
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether 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 1 recites “non-transitory electronic storage storing onboarding information, the onboarding information including a set of available role-specific prompts posing questions related to a collaboration environment; one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: manage environment state information maintaining the collaboration environment, the collaboration environment being configured to facilitate interaction by users with the collaboration environment, the environment state information including records, the records including user information describing the users of the collaboration environment, and/or work unit information describing units of work managed, created, and/or assigned within the collaboration environment; in response to obtaining a request to onboard a new user to the collaboration environment: attribute a role to the new user; obtain a subset of role-specific prompts from the set of available role-specific prompts based on the role attributed to the new user; effectuate presentation of an instance of a graphical user interface on a computing platform associated with the new user, the instance of the graphical user interface displaying the subset of role-specific prompts; obtain response information conveying a set of answers to the questions posed in the subset of role-specific prompts; provide a record for the new user based on the response information, the record being provided such that first user information and/or first work unit information in the record is adapted based on the response information; cause the instance of the graphical user interface presented at the computing platform to navigate to a first view of the collaboration environment through which the record is made accessible”. Claim 11 discloses similar limitations as Claim 1, and therefore recite an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1 and 11 are directed to “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)”, and “Mental Processes” in particular “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” 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 2-10 and 12-20 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 1 and 11 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 1 and 11 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1 and 11 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 in ¶95, 101-102 “A given client computing platform may include one or more processors configured to execute computer program components. The computer program components may be configured to enable an expert or user associated with the given client computing platform to interface with system 100 and/or external resource(s) 126, and/or provide other functionality attributed herein to client computing platform(s) 104. By way of non-limiting example, the given client computing platform 104 may include one or more of a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a handheld computer, a tablet computing platform, a NetBook, a Smartphone, a gaming console, and/or other computing platforms. FIG. 2 illustrates a method 200 to provide records for new users of a collaboration environment, in accordance with one or more implementations. The operations of method 200 presented below are intended to be illustrative. In some implementations, method 200 may be accomplished with one or more additional operations not described, and/or without one or more of the operations discussed. Additionally, the order in which the operations of method 200 are illustrated in FIG. 2 and described below is not intended to be limiting. In some implementations, method 200 may be implemented in one or more processing devices (e.g., a digital processor, an analog processor, a digital circuit designed to process information, an analog circuit designed to process information, a state machine, and/or other mechanisms for electronically processing information). The one or more processing devices may include one or more devices executing some or all of the operations of method 200 in response to instructions stored electronically on an electronic storage medium. The one or more processing devices may include one or more devices configured through hardware, firmware, and/or software to be specifically designed for execution of one or more of the operations of method 200”.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 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.
Conclusion
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 Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
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).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 7/29/2026
Prosecution Insights