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 Claims
This is a final office action in response to the amendment filed 18 June 2025. Claims 1, 5, 13, 15, have been amended. Claims 14 and 16 have been canceled. Claims 17-18 are newly added. Claims 1-13, 15, and 17-18 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 5, 13, 15 and addition of new claims 17-18 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment is insufficient to overcome the pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The rejection remains pending and is updated below, as necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s amendment is sufficient to overcome the pending 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. The rejection is respectfully withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejection have been fully considered, and are persuasive. While the prior art of record is relevant and individually each reference discloses or otherwise suggests portions of the claim limitations when applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. The specific ordered combined sequence of claim elements recited in claims 1, 15, and 17 can only be found as recited in Applicant’s specification. Any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all the claim elements would be the result of impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and do not fall within the mathematical concepts grouping, certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, or mental processes grouping of abstract concepts; that the claimed “subject matter provides for updating and maintaining the status of a project in real time and facilitates a better more accurate understanding of the status of a project being tracked so that, for example, a project manager can make better informed technical decisions more efficiently,” and in a manner that integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application when considering the additional elements individually and in combination; and under Step 2B the claims amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As stated by Applicant at page 15 of the arguments and remarks the “subject matter provides for updating and maintaining the status of a project in real time and facilitates a better more accurate understanding of the status of a project being tracked so that, for example, a project manager can make better informed technical decisions more efficiently.” The additional elements, when considered individually or in combination are applied to process data and update the status of project tasks and deliverable, assigning a weightage to each deliverable and adjusting the project completion status according to a product of the changed lifecycle state and the assigned weightage. The claimed limitations are directed to an abstract idea of collecting data, analyzing it, and outputting certain results of the collection and analysis in manner that fails to improve the underlying technologies used to implement the abstract idea.
While including additional elements in the form of deliverable business objects and project deliverable objects that represent (per page 20 of the arguments) “a data structure in object-oriented programming that can contain functions … as well as constants, variables, and other data structures,” and data processing modules in the form of a task deliverable relationship manger, a task maturity state machine, and a deliverable business object lifecycle state machine for processing data according to policy and business rules, the independent claims recite a method for organizing human activity related to project management. Examiner notes that Applicant’s definition of “objects” is construed in examination using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Per the specification, a task is assigned to an assignee and the claimed subject matter is directed to updating and maintaining a project status in real-time for a project comprising a plurality of tasks. The claimed project/task monitoring and status updating can be done mentally or using pen and paper by a project manager or supervisor. Therefore the claims are properly construed as falling with the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Further, the steps for “mapping each tracked deliverable lifecycle state to a percentage completion of a project task” and “assigning a weightage to each deliverable according to an importance of the deliverable… wherein the sum of the weightages for all deliverables of each task of the plurality of tasks is 100%” involves a mathematical relationship and falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
The question here is whether each independent claims as a whole focuses on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology or is directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invokes generic processes and machinery. The claims are not directed to technical improves to a computer, object oriented data structures/ programming, or database management. Merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Here, the additional elements specifically highlighted by Applicant, at least at pages 14-15 of the arguments and remarks, considered in the context of claim 1 as a whole (and similarly independent claims 5 and 17), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they simply recite steps to process, transmit, and output/display data. To the extent claims 1, 5, and 17 provide any improvement, namely, “updating and maintaining the status of a project in real time … facilitat[ing] a better and more accurate understanding of the status of a project being tracked so that a project manager, for example, can make better informed technical decisions more efficiently” (see Arguments, pg. 15), the improvement is to the abstract idea itself, which is not enough for patent eligibility. The improvement stated by Applicant is an improvement to the abstract idea of organizing human activity related to business management, and not to the computer, which is not sufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea, do not provide a practical application of the additional elements, and when considered in combination do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is proper, maintained, and updated below, as necessitated by amendment.
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 – 13, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a device for updating and maintaining a project status in real-time, and independent claim 5 recites a process for updating a project status in real-time, and independent claim 17 recites a process updating and maintaining a project status in real-time. Claims 1, 5, and 17 recite substantially similar limitations. The limitations independent claims 1, 5, and 17 recite the abstract idea of updating and managing project/task status data (gathering and analyzing data for business decision making), without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, as amended, recites at least the following limitations:
a memory device configured to store a project database with project data comprising product data and process data, the project data comprising a project deliverables object for each of the at least one deliverable and a deliverable business object,
the project deliverables object further comprising a task deliverable type of a plurality of task deliverable types, a task deliverable policy comprising a plurality of lifecycle stages, and a deliverable maturity state indicating a measure of completion for the at least one deliverable according to the task deliverable policy, wherein the task deliverable type has a corresponding task deliverable template,
the deliverable business object further comprising a deliverable business object lifecycle state;
a computer based task deliverable relationship manager configured to relate the product data and the process data, wherein the task deliverable relationship manager is in communication with the project database;
a computer based project deliverable manager further comprising a task maturity state machine and a deliverable business object lifecycle state machine, wherein the project deliverable manager is in communication with the task deliverable relationship manager and the project database, and the project deliverable manager is configured to:
receive real-time deliverable status;
and update the task maturity state machine, the deliverable business object lifecycle state machine, and the project database based upon the real-time deliverable status, wherein the system is configured to:
define a plurality of deliverable lifecycle states to be tracked for each project task with at least one deliverable,
map each tracked deliverable lifecycle state to a percentage completion of a project task,
assign a weightage to each deliverable according to an importance of the deliverable,
receive a changed lifecycle state for a deliverable,
and automatically adjust a project task percentage completion status according to a product of the changed lifecycle state and the assigned weightage, wherein at least one of the plurality of tasks comprises more than one deliverable, and the sum of the weightages for all deliverables of each task of the plurality of tasks is 100%.
Under Step 1 independent claims 1, 5, and 17 recite at least one step or act, including mapping each tracked deliverable lifecycle state to a percentage completion of a project task. Thus the claims fall within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Under Step 2A Prong One the limitations for managing task completion and updating task status is a form of organizing human activity and the claims are reasonably construed to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping when applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim language in view of the specification. Per the specification at pages 3 and 4 “Projects are typically described and delegated by a project manager. … a "deliverable" refers to a product or service provided to an internal or external client as part of a task. A deliverable usually has a due date and is tangible, measurable, and specific. A deliverable satisfies a milestone or due date that is created and produced in the project plan. Examples of a deliverable include a software product, a design document, a training program, a 3D Design, a requirement specification, an engineering or manufacturing artifact, or another asset according to the project plan.” Per the specification, a task is assigned to an assignee and the claimed subject matter is directed to updating and maintaining a project status in real-time for a project comprising a plurality of tasks. Because the claims recite limitations for receiving, updating, and adjusting project/task completion status information related to tasks delegated by a project manager, and the specification defines a deliverable as a product or service provided to a client, and example deliverables are tasks performed by people the claim limitations recite steps that fall within the abstract concept grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitations for receiving real-time status data, relating the product data and process data, updating state machines and project database, defining a plurality of lifecycle states, mapping tracked lifecycle states to a percentage completion, assigning weightage, receiving a changed lifecycle state, and adjusting a completion status, as drafted, illustrates a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (observing, evaluating, analyzing, and updating information). A project manager could track and update project/task data, completion statuses, and information related thereto using a pen and paper based upon observations, evaluations, and received information. Therefore, the limitations fall into the mental processes grouping and accordingly the claims recite an abstract idea.
The steps for “mapping each tracked deliverable lifecycle state to a percentage completion of a project task” and “assigning a weightage to each deliverable according to an importance of the deliverable… wherein the sum of the weightages for all deliverables of each task of the plurality of tasks is 100%” involves determining a mathematical relationship or performing a calculation and falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The MPEP Guidance expressly recognizes mathematical relationships and calculations as constituting patent-ineligible abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The steps for storing product data and process data in a database, communicating with the computer-based task deliverable relationship manger and the project database, and receiving status data amount to mere data gathering steps that prove input for the data processing steps and constitute insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2A Prong Two the additional elements recited in the claims include a memory device configured to store a project database, comprising product data and process data, a computer based task deliverable relationship manager configured to relate the product data and the process data, a computer based project deliverable manager comprising a task maturity state machine and a deliverable business object lifecycle state machine, a server, and a communication terminal. The judicial exception of independent claims 1, 5, and 17 is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite a processor and storage device for performing the recited steps. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, Applicant’s specification at page 12 states: “The embodiments for the present system for executing the functionality described in detail above may be implemented via a computer, an example of which is shown in the schematic diagram of FIG. 5. The system 500 contains a processor 502, a storage device 504, a memory 506 having software 508 stored therein that defines the abovementioned functionality … The processor 502 can be any custom made or commercially available single core or multi-core processor, a central processing unit (CPU).” Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions, such as data gathering, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recited computing elements are merely a general link to the technological environment of computer processing systems. These computer-related limitations are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
While including additional elements in the form of deliverable business objects and project deliverable objects, a task deliverable relationship manger, a task maturity state machine, and a deliverable business object lifecycle state machine, these additional elements are recited broadly and are used to apply the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing project data for updating and managing a project status according to business policy and rules, without significantly more. To the extent the additional elements of claims 1, 5, and 17 provide any improvement when considered individually or in combination, the improvement is to the abstract idea itself, which is not enough for patent eligibility.
To the extent that Applicant relies on providing the claimed “update” in “real-time” as the practical application, Applicant is reminded that in most cases, relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. Merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea. When viewed individually or in combination, absent the computer implementation, the recited steps for updating the status of project deliverables by processing business related data using data associations and mathematical concepts could be performed in the mind or by use of a pen and paper. 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. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The Specification does not provide additional details about the computer system/server that would distinguish it from any generic processing devices that communicate with one another in a network environment. No technical details are claimed for the system of claim 1 or the method of claim 5 that provide an improvement to technology or a practical application of the abstract concept. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Here, the claims are directed to organizing and manipulating information through data and mathematical correlations and is directed to an abstract idea. The claims, in essence, merely recite various computer-based elements along with no more than mere instructions to implement the identified abstract idea using the computer-based elements. These additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of the processor or database, and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor and storage device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2 through 4, and 6 through 13, 15, and 18 include the abstract idea of the independent claims. The limitations of the dependent claims merely narrow the mental process/method of organizing human activity by defining the generic communication elements used to transmit and receive data, defining the type of data received, and how the received data is manipulated to generate a status update or percentage complete value. The limitations of the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application because none of the additional elements set forth any limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea implementation, therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea. There are no additional elements that transform the claim into a patent eligible idea by amounting to significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Therefore claims 1 – 13, 15, and 17-18 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 13, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but the claims would be allowable if the aforementioned rejections are overcome.
Examiner analyzed amended Claim 1, and similarly claims 5 and 17, in view of the prior art of record and an updated prior art search and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine these references with a reasonable expectation of success. Moreover since the specific ordered combined sequence of claim elements recited in claims 1, 5, and 17 can only be found as recited in Applicant’s specification, any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all the claim elements would be the result of impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Accordingly, any combination of the prior art of record and any of the additional references would be improper to teach the claimed invention. As a result, claims 1 – 13, 15, and 17-18 are eligible over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Bowman-Amuah (US 2001/0052108) - Project Management processes follow a cycle of planning the project's execution, organizing its resources, and controlling its work. The Project Management team oversees all other teams within the development environment. A method, system, and article of manufacture are provided for designing, implementing, and maintaining a development architecture framework. The present invention manages information that supports a project being carried out by a development architecture framework, the project being carried out by the development architecture framework is managed by generating a plan to carry out the project, scheduling a timeline for executing the plan, tracking the execution of the plan, and reporting information uncovered during tracking. The delivery of components of the project are coordinated in a selected order. Further, problems that occur during the delivery of the components of the project are rectified and updated support information is maintained during the delivery.
Vigneswaran (US 2019/0180218) - the processor of the task scheduling server is configured to: arrange the plurality of work stages into an ordered project schedule that is defined in accordance with the project timeframe, the ordered project schedule including a plurality of dependent stage relationships, each dependent stage relationships indicating that initiation of a second work stage is dependent upon at least partial completion of a first work stage; receive a first work completion notification from the mobile device of a first assigned user for the first work stage through the user application; and trigger transmission of the work stage notification to a second assigned user for the second work stage in response to the work completion notification.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 LETORIA G KNIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-0485. 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, 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.
/L.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights