DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
[2] A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 January 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
[3] This communication is in response to the Amendment and the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 14 January 2026. It is noted that this application benefits from Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 63/009,849 filed 14 April 2020. Claims 3-4, 6, and 9-13 have been cancelled. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 8 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
[4] Claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 as presented by amendment recites: “…first task information comprising two or more randomly-recurring specific task components…automatically transmitting, by the processor over the network, said first task information to the plurality of user mobile computing devices , wherein each of said participating members is assigned at least one of said two or more randomly-recurring specific task components, such that all of said two or more randomly- recurring specific task components are assigned to at least one participating member, wherein each randomly-recurring specific task component comprises a specific accountability task to be completed, an accountability or frequency level, and a type of completion proof required…”
With respect to the recitation of two or more randomly occurring specific task components and the assignment thereof, the supportive disclosure appears to be limited to page 5 of the Specification as originally filed which provides:
“…A group leader, coach, team captain, or the like, acts as the originating user who creates and saves a task with a randomly recurring specific task component…”. The supportive disclosure does not appear to describe creation of a task having tow or more random recurrent components.
Accordingly, claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of a method which includes the creation of a task having two or more randomly-recurring task components. For purposes of further examination, Examiner assumes that a task having a task element that is presented at random times/intervals is generated and presented/assigned to users at random times.
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.
[5] Previous rejection(s) of claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more has/have not been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are maintained. The revised statement of rejection presented below is necessitated by amendment and addresses the present amendments to the pending claims.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05). Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, and 8 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claim 1 is directed to a method and is understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, claim 1 is determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of distributing defined tasks to personnel and tracking accountability of personnel performing assigned tasks, which is reasonably considered to be method of Organizing Human Activity. In particular, the general subject matter to which the claims are directed serves to distribute tasks, i.e., activities, to users who perform the tasks and verify completion based on set criteria which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions).
In support of Examiner’s conclusion, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the claim limitations of representative claim 1. In particular, claim 1 as amended includes:
“…receiving…first task information created by a first user from a plurality of users…wherein the first task information relates to a task or action to be accomplished by at least two other participating users from said plurality of users, said first task information comprising two or more randomly-recurring specific task components…automatically transmitting…said first task information to the plurality of user… wherein each of said participating members is assigned at least one of said two or more randomly-recurring specific task components, such that all of said two or more randomly-recurring specific task components are assigned to at least one participating member, wherein each randomly-recurring specific task component comprises a specific accountability task to be completed, an accountability or frequency level, and a type of completion proof required;…automatically receiving…a first time-stamped read receipt from each of the plurality of user …when the first task information is viewed by an associated user; automatically transmitting… first time-stamped read receipt to the first user…and the plurality of user…automatically transmitting…to said plurality of user…at the determined random time, the time completion notice; automatically receiving…from one or more of said participating users… one or more of electronic completion proof messages from the plurality of member user…each electronic completion proof message comprising a picture or a video of the corresponding associated member user with a time stamp and associated location indicia establishing that the corresponding associated member user completed the specific accountability task; and automatically transmitting…each of the received electronic completion proof messages to the plurality of user…”
Considered as an ordered combination, the steps/functions of claim 1 are reasonably considered to be representative of the inventive concept and are further reasonably understood to be series of actions or activities directed to a general process of distributing tasks, i.e., activities, to users who perform the tasks and verify completion based on set criteria, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Further limitations are directed to ineligible processes/functions which are performable by Human Mental Processing and/or or by a human using pen and paper (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Lastly, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, amended claim 1 recites:
“…automatically determining…a random time during a set time period to automatically transmit to said plurality of user…a time completion notice of a pre-set completion time in which each respective specific accountability task is to be completed…”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited “processor”, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of determining a time to implement or otherwise require a user to perform a specific task by employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
As presented by amendment, the claimed technical elements and the associated steps performed by or using the respective processor and/or devices constitute technical features which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
As presented by amendment, technical elements of claim 1 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject are limited to: “telecommunications network”, “server with processor”, “first user computing device”, and “plurality of user mobile computing devices”. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “server” and “processor” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “telecommunications network” is identified as facilitating each of the recited transmitting steps in which the task information, read receipts, notices, and messages and sent and received among the recited user computing devices.
(3) The “first user computing device” is identified as a device from which the first task information is received.
(4) The “plurality of user mobile computing devices” are identified as being associated with each of the plurality of users and further transmitting and receiving the recited read receipts, notices, and messages and sent and received among the recited user computing devices.
As presented by amendment, claim 1 further indicates actions performed by the recited processor including:
“…automatically determining…a random time during a set time period to automatically transmit to said plurality of user mobile computing devices a time completion notice of a pre-set completion time in which each respective specific accountability task is to be completed…”
As presented by amendment, the claimed technical elements and the associated steps performed by or using the respective processor and/or devices constitute technical features are limited to an unspecified function of the processor associated with processes otherwise performable by human mental processing, e.g., “…automatically determining…a random time during a set time period to automatically transmit to said plurality of user mobile computing devices a time completion notice of a pre-set completion time in which each respective specific accountability task is to be completed…”
and to transmitting messages and information to and from user devices.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2103.05(f) and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., tasks are received, notices and completion criteria are transmitted etc.) as associated with a respective “device” or “network”. The technology as engaged is solely identified as storing and retrieving information, performing tasks that are otherwise performable in the human mind (e.g., performing tasks and determining times to perform tasks and send notifications), and sending and receiving information over a network (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of tracking accountability of personnel performing assigned tasks using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment, e.g., generic devices capable of transmitting data over a network. The claimed tracking accountability of personnel performing assigned tasks benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes pages 7-11. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “server” and “processor” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “telecommunications network” is identified as facilitating each of the recited transmitting steps in which the task information, read receipts, notices, and messages and sent and received among the recited user computing devices.
(3) The “first user computing device” is identified as a device from which the first task information is received.
(4) The “plurality of user mobile computing devices” are identified as being associated with each of the plurality of users and further transmitting and receiving the recited read receipts, notices, and messages and sent and received among the recited user computing devices.
As presented by amendment, claim 1 further indicates actions performed by the recited processor including:
“…automatically determinizing, by the processor, a random time during a set time period to automatically transmit to said plurality of user mobile computing devices a time completion notice of a pre-set completion time in which each respective specific accountability task is to be completed…”
As presented by amendment, the claimed technical elements and the associated steps performed by or using the respective processor and/or devices constitute technical features are limited to an unspecified function of the processor associated with processes otherwise performable by human mental processing, e.g., “…automatically determining, by the processor, a random time during a set time period to automatically transmit to said plurality of user mobile computing devices a time completion notice of a pre-set completion time in which each respective specific accountability task is to be completed…” and to transmitting messages and information to and from user devices.
Accordingly, with respect to these technical elements and functions which potentially amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, the claimed “devices” are identified as transmitting tasks and task completion information. The claimed “server” and “network” is/are identified as performing message and data receipts/transmissions to and from the devices.
With respect to the executable routines, the claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures are programmed/configured to: (1) transmit tasks and task completion information; and (2) perform message and data receipts/transmissions to and from the devices. While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., tasks and completing criteria); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., task information); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., performing tasks and determining times to perform tasks and send notifications).
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computers operating in a network environment of the instant invention are facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., distributing defined tasks to personnel and tracking accountability of personnel performing assigned tasks, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of distributing defined tasks to personnel and tracking accountability of personnel performing assigned tasks benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: 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; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information 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); 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 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Dependent claims 2, 5, 7, and 8, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In accordance with all relevant considerations and aligned with previous findings of the courts, the technical elements imparted on the method that would potentially provide a basis for meeting a “significantly more” threshold for establishing patent eligibility for an otherwise abstract concept by the use of computer technology fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
[6] Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bussey (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0278648) in view of Irish (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0378549) in view of Boccuzzi, Jr. et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0278850) and further in view of Keays et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0191769).
With respect to (currently amended) claim 1, Bussey discloses a method for accountability tracking, comprising the steps of: receiving, over a network, first task information created by a first user (Bussey; paragraphs [0028] [0029] Fig. 2; See at least admin creates task list and task list distributed via network); automatically transmitting, over the network, said first task information to a second user for viewing on a second user mobile computing device (Bussey; paragraphs [0028] [0053] Fig. 2; See at least task list distributed to user), wherein the first task information comprises a specific task to be completed, an accountability or frequency level, and a type of completion proof required (Bussey; paragraphs [0005] [0028] Figs 2-7; See at least verification criteria and prompts); receiving, over the network, a first time-stamped read receipt from the second user mobile computing device when the first task information is viewed by the second user (Bussey; paragraphs [0005] [0028]; See at least time and date stamps sent to admin creator); automatically transmitting, over the network, said first time-stamped read receipt to the first user (Bussey; paragraphs [0005] [0028] Fig. 3; See at least time stamped task); and receiving, over the network, a completion proof message from the second user, wherein the completion proof message establishes that the specific task was completed by the second user, and conforms to the type of completion proof required (Bussey; paragraphs [0005] [0028] Fig. 3; See at least completion criteria verified and sent to admin/creator).
Claim 1 further specifies that the “network” is a “telecommunications network” and that the previously recited “first task information” is received “…at a central server with a processor, from a first user computing device…”. Claim 1 further indicates that each of the receiving and transmitting steps are performed “by the processor” in conjunction with one of a “first user computing device” or “a second user mobile computing device”. Claim 1 further specifies that the preciously recited “completion proof message” is “an electronic completion proof message”.
With respect to these elements Bussey discloses an admin (i.e., first user) creates a digital task list which is accessible to a user mobile computing device via a computer network (Bussey; paragraphs [0005] [0028] and Figs. 1 and 22). Bussey et al. further indicates that the digital task list created by the admin specifies: (1) tasks to be completed (“specific task(s)”) (Bussey; paragraphs [0005] [0028] Fig. 2); (2) a timestamp indicating receipt/completion of tasks (a requirement of “accountability”) (Bussey; paragraphs [0005] [0028] Fig.3); and (3) an admin specified type of proof of completion (a “type of completion proof”) (Bussey; paragraphs [0005] [0028] Figs 1 and 22 item 46). Bussey further specifies that the type of proof of completion is communicated to the user by prompts on the user mobile device and that completed tasks including timestamps and digital proof of completion in accordance with the admin’s specifications are sent/stored and accessible to the admin via a server (Bussey; paragraphs [0028] [0029] and Fig. 1; See server and completed tasks).
Bussey specifies that the task list created by the admin is a digital task list which is accessible to the user via a network enabled communication device and Bussey further indicates that the admin accesses the completed task information via a server. While Examiner notes that it is reasonably obvious that the admin user is performing these activities via the server and by a first user computing device, nevertheless Bussey is silent as to the admin/first user submitting the task list and information via a first user computing device.
As evidenced by Irish, it is well-known in the art to provide separate task management applications/interfaces accessible via user devices for task list creation by a task assignor and for task performance and documentation by a task assignee (Irish; paragraphs [0121] [0201]-[0207]; See at least server and client device architecture. See further first and second user electronic devices communicating task information via the server architecture).
Claim 1 further recites “…automatically transmitting...said first task information to the plurality of member user…for viewing by the associated member user...wherein the first task information comprises a specific task to be completed, an accountability or frequency level, and a type of completion proof required;”.
Claim 1 further recites “…automatically receiving...a first time-stamped read receipt from each of the plurality of member...when the first task information is viewed by the associated member user …”.
Claim 1 further specifies “…automatically transmitting…said first time-stamped read receipt to the first user…and the plurality of member user…”;
Claim 1 has been further amended to specify “…automatically receiving…from one or more of said participating users…a plurality of electronic completion proof messages from the plurality of member user…each electronic completion proof message comprising a picture or a video of the corresponding associated member user with a time stamp and associated location indicia establishing that the corresponding associated member user completed the specific accountability task…”.
With respect to these elements, Bussey discloses the type of completion proof required comprises a picture and/or video of the second user carrying out or completing the specific task (Bussey; paragraphs [0028] [0050] Figs 14-45; See at least videos) and the type of completion proof required comprises a time stamp (Bussey; paragraphs [0005] [0028] Fig. 3; See at least timestamps). Bussey in combination with Irish further disclose the elements of the claim limitations that have not been amended.
Claim 1 has been further amended with respect to the plurality of users to specify that “…each user of said plurality of users associated with at least one user mobile computing device from said plurality of user mobile computing devices…”.
With respect to the directive of the claim to a plurality of member users and the task distribution of messaging among a plurality of users, neither Bussey nor Irish specify that the task transmission and verification data is transmitted among a group of users.
However, Boccuzzi Jr. et al. disclose a coordinated task performance system and method which includes functionality to disseminate tasks lists to a plurality of participating individuals (Boccuzzi, Jr. et al.; paragraphs [0026] [0032] [0066] [0067] [0073]; See at least tasks and tasks lists disseminated to participants via network. See further, analytics engine monitors task reports and participant task data including completion of tasks) and further enables the sending of verification and completion data to any participating individual and by any participating individual (Boccuzzi, Jr. et al.; paragraphs [0026] [0053] [0066]; See at least photos and images included as completion criteria and completed by a number of users. Users transmitting the completion data to the system are reasonably inclusive of both independent verifiers and task performers).
Claim 1 has been amended with respect to the previously recited “…first task information created by a first user…” to further specify “…, wherein each of said participating members is assigned at least one of said two or more randomly-recurring specific task components, such that all of said two or more randomly- recurring specific task components are assigned to at least one participating member, wherein each randomly-recurring specific task component comprises a specific accountability task to be completed…”.
As presented by amendment, claim 1 further includes “…automatically determinizing, by the processor, a random time during a set time period to automatically transmit to said plurality of user mobile computing devices a time completion notice of a pre-set completion time in which each respective specific accountability task is to be completed…”
With respect to these elements, while Bussey et al. disclose verification of task completion including the use of a specified timestamp, Bussey et al. fail to specify that the task is randomly occurring and, by extension, Bussey fails to indicate that tasks are implemented or required at a random time during a set time period and include a pre-set completion time. Neither Irish et al nor Boccuzzi Jr. et al. remedy the deficiencies of Bussey with respect to these features.
However, as evidenced by Keays et al., it is well-known in the art, employ user mobile devices to remotely notify a user to perform a breathalyzer test/task at random time intervals within a defined test period and within a defined test window (Keays et al.; paragraphs [0040] [0042] [0045] [0050]; See at least user prompts to perform test, setting testing period, setting test window within test time period. See further randomization of testing times/prompts within defined test window and recording of a missed test if the test is not performed within the defined test window).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the admin communications of digital tasks lists of Bussey by further including further specification of the devices and application utilized to submit task lists and access results via a server as taught by Irish. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of assigning tasks and reviewing results via a computer network. As Bussey disclose the use of admin communications of digital tasks lists and results in the context of a system and method for assigning tasks and reviewing results via a computer network and Irish similarly discloses the utility designated user devices for task assignors and task assignees which communicate via a server in the context of a system and method for assigning tasks and reviewing results via a computer network, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of improving time management and organizational efficiency by rapidly and clearly communicating and incentivizing tasks agreed upon by task assignors and assignees (Irish; paragraphs [0002] and [0004]).
Regarding the combination the includes Boccuzzi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified user participation and communications of digital tasks lists of Bussey by further including functionality to disseminate tasks lists and receive verification data to and from a plurality of participating individuals as taught by Boccuzzi et al. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of assigning tasks and reviewing results via a computer network. As Bussey disclose the use of admin communications of digital tasks lists and results in the context of a system and method for assigning tasks and reviewing results via a computer network and Boccuzzi et al. similarly discloses the utility of functionality to disseminate tasks lists and receive verification data to and from a plurality of participating individuals in the context of a system and method for assigning tasks and reviewing results via a computer network, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of improving time management and organizational efficiency by rapidly and clearly communicating and incentivizing tasks agreed upon by task assignors and assignees.
Regarding the combination the includes Keays et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the verification of task completion including the use of a specified timestamps of Bussey by further including functionality of employing user mobile devices to remotely notify a user to perform a breathalyzer test/task at random time intervals within a defined test period and within a defined test window as taught by Keays et al.. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of assigning tasks and reviewing results via a computer network. As Bussey discloses the use of verification of task completion including the use of a specified timestamps in the context of a system and method for assigning tasks and reviewing results via a computer network and Keays et al. similarly discloses the utility of employing user mobile devices to remotely notify a user to perform a breathalyzer test/task at random time intervals within a defined test period and within a defined test window in the context of a system and method for assigning tasks and reviewing results via a computer network, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of reducing supervisory costs associated with the required performance of tasks by monitored individuals (Keays et al.; paragraph [0003).
With respect to (currently amended) claim 2, Bussey discloses a method further comprising the steps of: receiving, over the network, a second time-stamped read receipt from the first user mobile computing device when each completion proof message is viewed by the first user (Bussey; paragraphs [0028] [0029] [0050]; See at least admin determines completion/verification criteria. See time stamps applied); and automatically transmitting, over the network, said second time-stamped read receipt to the [[second]] corresponding associated member user mobile computing device (Bussey; paragraphs [0028] [0050] Fig. 22; See at least timestamped verification/completion tasks viewable by both user and admin via the network).
Claims 3 and 4 are cancelled.
With respect to claim 5, Bussey discloses a method wherein the type of completion proof required comprises a date stamp (Bussey; paragraphs [0028] [0029] Fig. 3; See at least date stamp).
Claim 6 is cancelled.With respect to claim 7, Bussey discloses a method wherein the type of completion proof required comprises breathalyzer data (Bussey; paragraph [0053]; See at least uses including verifying daily medical treatments and policemen verifying procedures in collecting evidence. Examiner submits these are both encompassing of test such as a breathalyzer).
With respect to claim 8, Bussey discloses a method wherein the completion proof message comprises a picture or video, a time stamp, a location, a task description, a frequency indicator, and a text message from the second user (Bussey; paragraphs [0028] [0029] [0050]; See at least pictures, videos, location and messages).
Claims 9-13 have been cancelled.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[7] Applicant's remarks filed 14 January 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
[i] Applicant’s remarks in response to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 14 July 2025 are reasonably considered to have been fully addressed in the context of the revised rejection of the claims presented above responsive to the amendments to the subject claims. Additionally, Applicant substantially rehashes arguments previously presented in the prior response. These arguments are addressed in accordance with Examiner’s response in the prior Office Actions mailed 14 July 2025, 9 January 2024, and 1 October 2024, incorporated in their entirety in response.
[ii] Applicant’s remarks directed to previous rejection(s) of claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 8 as under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 14 July 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed in the context of the revised rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 and further responsive to the reasonable interpretation of the amended limitations under the newly presented rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) responsive to the present amendments.
Conclusion
[8] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wallenstein, SOCIAL AND COMMERCIAL INTERNET PLATFORM FOR CORRELATING, CROWDSOURCING, AND CONVENING PEOPLE AND PRODUCTS OF RELATED CHARACTERISTICS INTO A VIRTUAL SOCIAL NETWORK, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0199770, paragraphs [0012]-[0016] [0072][0075][0085]-[0090]: Relevant Teachings: Wallenstein discloses a system and method which provides a social network function including designations of users into affinity groups. The system/method further directs messaging and content to the affinity groups through associated devices. Additionally, the system employs the use of hashtags for the purpose of directing user inputs and comments to a group.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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 V 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625