DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final, First Office Action on the Merits in response to communications filed April 29, 2025. Claims 1–20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 11 recite “presenting … a notification to the user related to the projection”. Although the claims recite “projecting … the representation”, the claims do not recite “a projection”. Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite “presenting … a notification to the user related to the representation” in order to avoid issues of clarity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “receiving user data of a user”; “generating a representation in a first space as a function of the user data, wherein generating the representation in the first space comprises: receiving one or more dynamic weightings associated with the user data, wherein the one or more dynamic weightings indicate a level of importance of one or more portions of user data”; and “generating the representation in the first space using a model and the one or more dynamic weightings, wherein the one or more dynamic weightings affect an output of the model”; “projecting the representation to a second space, wherein the second space comprises a second quantity of dimensions, wherein projecting the representation to the second space comprises: presenting a graphic”; and “presenting a notification to the user related to the projection.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for generating scheduling representations for a user. Further, the identified elements recite mental processes because the elements embody observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 11 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 11 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–10 and 12–20 further describe the process for generating scheduling representations for a user and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–10 and 12–20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computing device, a large language model, a remote device, and an element for “generating … using a large language model”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claim 11 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 1 further includes a processor and a memory, the additional elements, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 11 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 4, 7, 10, 14, 17, and 20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include one or more interactive elements and a graphical user interface (claims 4 and 14), encoded weightings (claims 7 and 17), and a modular tuning framework of a graphical user interface (claims 10 and 20). When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 4, 7, 10, 14, 17, and 20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–3, 5–6, 8–9, 12–13, 15–16, and 18–19 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–3, 5–6, 8–9, 12–13, 15–16, and 18–19 depend. As a result, claims 2–3, 5–6, 8–9, 12–13, 15–16, and 18–19 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computing device, a large language model, a remote device, and an element for “generating … using a large language model”. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claim 11 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 11 further includes a processor and a memory, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 11 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 4, 7, 10, 14, 17, and 20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include one or more interactive elements and a graphical user interface (claims 4 and 14), encoded weightings (claims 7 and 17), and a modular tuning framework of a graphical user interface (claims 10 and 20). The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 4, 7, 10, 14, 17, and 20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–3, 5–6, 8–9, 12–13, 15–16, and 18–19 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–3, 5–6, 8–9, 12–13, 15–16, and 18–19 depend. As a result, claims 2–3, 5–6, 8–9, 12–13, 15–16, and 18–19 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1–6, 8–9, 11–16, and 18–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebwohl et al. (U.S. 2025/0182219) in view of Nelson et al. (U.S. 2014/0379602).
Claims 1 and 11: Lebwohl discloses a method of generating projections of representations of data in a plurality of spaces, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, user data of a user (See FIG. 1 and paragraph 64, wherein user data is received by a computing architecture from the user device);
generating, by the computing device, a representation in a first space as a function of the user data, wherein generating the representation in the first space (See FIG. 6F and paragraphs 86–87, in view of paragraphs 105 and 107, wherein an event schedule is generated based on the user data; see also paragraph 61, wherein the application is integrated with event and registration applications, and Table 15, wherein activities are automatically booked and managed within the user calendar) comprises:
receiving one or more dynamic weightings associated with the user data, wherein the one or more dynamic weightings indicate a level of importance of one or more portions of user data (See paragraphs 115 and 123, wherein preference weights are dynamically adjusted based on user data); and
generating the representation in the first space using a large language model and the one or more dynamic weightings, wherein the one or more dynamic weightings affect an output of the large language model (See FIG. 6F and paragraphs 86–87, in view of paragraphs 105 and 107, wherein an event schedule is generated based on the user data; see also paragraphs 115 and 123, wherein the event schedule is generated based on dynamic preference weights associated with the user);
projecting, by the computing device, the representation to a space, wherein projecting the representation to the space (See FIG. 6F) comprises:
presenting a graphic (See FIG. 6F); and
presenting, by the computing device at a remote device, a notification to the user related to the projection (See FIG. 6F and paragraph 129, wherein event schedules and details are provided to the user; see also FIG. 1, wherein the computer architecture communicates with the user device). Lebwohl does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Nelson discloses projecting, by the computing device, the representation to a second space, wherein the second space comprises a second quantity of dimensions (See FIG. 6 and paragraph 55, in view of FIG. 5 and paragraphs 53–54, wherein the user may select a job category and subsequently select skills within the selected job category, and wherein upon selection of skills within the selected job category, the interface displays available courses for the selected skill).
Lebwohl discloses a system directed to recommending career advancement opportunities using an LLM. Nelson discloses a system directed to presenting education, career, and job opportunities to a user. Each reference discloses a system directed to recommending career advancement opportunities. The technique of utilizing a second space comprising a second quantity of dimensions is applicable to the system of Lebwohl as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to recommending career advancement opportunities.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Nelson would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Nelson to the teachings of Lebwohl would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate career advancement recommendations into similar systems. Further, applying a second space comprising a second quantity of dimensions to Lebwohl would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and improved management.
With respect to claim 11, Lebwohl discloses a processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the processor, the memory containing instructions (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 224).
Claims 2 and 12: Lebwohl discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the one or more dynamic weightings associated with the user data comprises receiving initialized dynamic weightings generated from a plurality of user data (See paragraph 115, wherein user preferences are weighted, and wherein initial weights are implicitly generated from the user data).
Claims 3 and 13: Lebwohl discloses the method of claim 2, wherein receiving the one or more dynamic weightings associated with the user data further comprises receiving a modification to the initialized dynamic weightings (See paragraphs 115 and 123, wherein the weights are dynamically adjusted based on user feedback).
Claims 4 and 14: Lebwohl discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the modification to the initialized dynamic weightings comprises an interaction with one or more interactive elements through a graphical user interface (See paragraphs 115 and 123, in view of FIG. 2, wherein the weights are dynamically adjusted based on user feedback obtained from the user feedback unit).
Claims 5 and 15: Lebwohl discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user data comprises previous representations generated on previous iterations of a processing of the computing device (See paragraph 123, wherein the system learns using a feedback loop that considers previously scheduled events).
Claims 6 and 16: Lebwohl discloses the method of claim 5, wherein receiving the one or more dynamic weightings comprises modifying the one or more dynamic weightings as a function of the previous representations (See paragraph 123, in view of paragraph 115, wherein the system learns using a feedback loop that considers previously scheduled events, and wherein preference weights are dynamically updated based on feedback).
Claims 8 and 18: Lebwohl discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first space comprises a first quantity of dimensions (See FIG. 6F, in view of paragraph 80, wherein the first space comprises an event schedule associated with an industry or domain associated with the user).
Claims 9 and 19: Lebwohl does not expressly disclose the elements of claim 9.
Nelson discloses wherein generating the representation in the first space comprises selecting a number of dimensions of the first quantity of dimensions (See FIG. 6 and paragraph 55, in view of FIG. 5 and paragraphs 53–54, wherein the user may select a job category and subsequently select skills within the selected job category, and wherein upon selection of skills within the selected job category, the interface displays available courses for the selected skill).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Nelson would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebwohl et al. (U.S. 2025/0182219) in view of Nelson et al. (U.S. 2014/0379602), and in further view of Lee (U.S. 2025/0232263).
Claims 7 and 17: As indicated above, Lebwohl and Nelson disclose the elements of claim 1.
Lebwohl discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user data is encoded as numerical weights and used to condition an output of the large language model (See paragraph 73, in view of paragraph 87, wherein the user data is encoded into a numerical dataset, and wherein the LLM utilizes the dataset to generate recommendations). Lebwohl and Nelson do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Lee discloses wherein the one or more dynamic weightings are encoded as numerical weights (See paragraph 178, wherein preferences are weighted within the embedding space).
As disclosed above, Lebwohl discloses a system directed to recommending career advancement opportunities using an LLM, and Nelson discloses a system directed to presenting education, career, and job opportunities to a user. Lee discloses a system directed to managing career opportunities and associated skills. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing career advancement opportunities. The technique of utilizing encoded weights is applicable to the systems of Lebwohl and Nelson as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing career advancement opportunities.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Lee would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Lee to the teachings of Lebwohl and Nelson would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate career advancement management into similar systems. Further, applying encoded weights to Lebwohl and Nelson would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and improved management.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebwohl et al. (U.S. 2025/0182219) in view of Nelson et al. (U.S. 2014/0379602), and in further view of Phelon et al. (U.S. 2010/0057659).
Claims 10 and 20: As indicated above, Lebwohl and Nelson disclose the elements of claim 1.
Lebwohl discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the one or more dynamic weightings associated with the user data comprises:
presenting a framework to the user through a graphical user interface (See paragraphs 115 and 123, in view of FIG. 2, wherein the weights are dynamically adjusted based on user feedback obtained from the user feedback unit); and
receiving the one or more dynamic weightings through an interaction with the framework (See paragraphs 115 and 123, in view of FIG. 2, wherein the weights are dynamically adjusted based on user feedback obtained from the user feedback unit). Lebwohl and Nelson do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Phelon discloses presenting a modular tuning framework to the user through a graphical user interface; and receiving the one or more dynamic preferences through an interaction with the modular tuning framework (See paragraph 69, wherein preferences may be set using a slider control within the interface).
As disclosed above, Lebwohl discloses a system directed to recommending career advancement opportunities using an LLM, and Nelson discloses a system directed to presenting education, career, and job opportunities to a user. Phelon discloses a system directed to managing career advancement and development. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing career advancement opportunities. The technique of utilizing a modular tuning framework is applicable to the systems of Lebwohl and Nelson as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing career advancement opportunities.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Phelon would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Phelon to the teachings of Lebwohl and Nelson would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate career advancement management into similar systems. Further, applying a modular tuning framework to Lebwohl and Nelson would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and improved management.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kartik (U.S. 2025/0053588) discloses a system directed to recommending and managing career development education content; and
Pasqualis et al. (U.S. 2013/0260351) discloses a system directed to scheduling a sequence of learning objectives.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, 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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights