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
The following is a non-final office action.
Claims [1-21] are currently pending and have been examined based on their merits.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are currently amended see REMARKS July 08, 2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 08, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception that is an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Step 1: claims 1-7 recite a system, and claims 8-14 recite a method (i.e. a process such as an act or series of steps), and claims 15-21 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium, and therefore each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The representative claims 1, 8, and 15 recites: A method, comprising: storing a case model definition, the case model definition comprising a structured data file defining a hierarchical container model portion, the hierarchical container model portion defining a hierarchical data model, the hierarchical data model representing an organization of case data and comprising a plurality of hierarchically related case nodes wherein the organization of case data comprises a definition of a file structure; storing a first lifecycle definition comprising a first lifecycle data structure, the first lifecycle data structure defining a hierarchical state machine schema for a first lifecycle for the case model definition, wherein the first lifecycle comprises a first set of phases and a different first case status associated with each of the first set phases; receiving a first user defined process for a first phase of the first lifecycle definition; receiving a second user defined process for a second phase of the first lifecycle definition; generating a first checklist comprising a parsable data structure containing a first set of executable instructions for the first phase of the first lifecycle definition, where the first checklist is associated with a first set of ordered tasks corresponding to the first user defined process for the first phase and a first initiating event, and wherein a last task of the first set of ordered tasks of the first checklist is associated with the second phase of the first lifecycle definition; generating a second checklist comprising a second parsable data structure containing a second set of executable instructions for the second phase of the first lifecycle definition, wherein the second checklist is associated with a second set of ordered tasks, the second set of ordered tasks corresponding to the second user defined process for the second phase and a second initiating event associated with at least one task of the first set of ordered tasks, the first checklist and the second checklist being separate checklist data structures; creating dynamically during runtime, a first case instance from the case model definition by evaluating the structured data file comprising the case model definition to generate a first data structure in the data store in accordance with the hierarchical data model defined by the case model definition, the first case instance having a first case status; in response to creation of the first case instance, initiating a first lifecycle of the first lifecycle definition for the first case instance, wherein the first lifecycle is associated with the first case instance, wherein the first phase and the second phase of the first lifecycle occur concurrently, the first phase and the second phase execute independently of one another, and wherein the first checklist for the first phase and second the checklist for the second phase operate independently of one another, wherein the first checklist and the second checklist are updated dynamically to enable the first lifecycle to be updated dynamically; based on the occurrence of the first initiating event in association with the first case instance, setting the first case status of the first case instance to indicate the first case status associated with the first phase of the first lifecycle definition and automatically initiating the execution of the first checklist of the first phase of the first lifecycle definition with respect to the first case instance; based on the completion of the last task of the first set of ordered tasks of the first set of executable instructions of the first checklist, setting the first case status of the first case instance to indicate the first case status associated with the second phase of the first lifecycle definition; and in response to the completion of the last task of the first set of ordered tasks, automatically initiating the execution of the second set of executable instructions of the second checklist of the second phase of the first lifecycle definition with respect to the first case instance; after initiating the first lifecycle of the first lifecycle definition for the first case instance, dynamically updating, during runtime of the first case instance, the first lifecycle definition by adding a third phase from the structured data file to the first lifecycle definition, wherein the third phase comprises a third checklist with a third data structure with a third set of executable instructions having a special marker field indicating automatic execution for extant case instances; in response to the adding of the third phase and evaluating the special marker field of the third checklist, automatically initiating the third checklist as a checklist process on the first case instance without resetting the first case instance, wherein the checklist process is executed independently from and concurrently with the execution of the first and second checklists regardless of the first case status associated with the first case instance; and updating the first case status of the first case instance to include a third phase status appended to currently executing phase status, such that the first case status indicates multiple concurrent lifecycle statuses at a single point in time regarding the checklist process.
The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity as the disclosure is directed to commercial or legal interactions. The Examiner finds the claims to simply recite a method of creating and managing a project lifecycle by defining a series of tasks to be completed in various phases as well as the triggers for begging each phase. The examiner finds that the invention is directed to the business practice of merely managing plans and tasks. The claims recite a method of receiving a case model definition or a series of steps of a process and how the steps are organized, receiving a user defined process for a second phase of a project, generating a checklist comprising executable instructions and order of tasks for a first and second phase of the project lifecycle, and managing the status of the tasks in the lifecycle. Merely creating and maintaining a series of tasks or operations to accomplish an objective and managing aspects such as status indicators upon execution of the tasks is a certain method of organizing human activity.
The Examiner find the recited claims to recite a mental process. The examiner finds the claims to be similar to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis." The claims merely recite a method for receiving information detailing a project lifecycle and the various tasks organized in a series of checklists to perform each phase of the lifecycle. Therefore, the examiner finds the claims to be similar to examples the courts have identified as reciting a mental process including observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. Therefore, the examiner finds the claims to be directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?): The claims additionally recite;
Claim 1: A case management system comprising: a processor; a network communication interface configured to connect a client device over a network; a non-transitory computer readable medium, a data store, and a file system for electronically storing the case data, a database interface.
Claim 8: A data store and a file system for electronically storing the case data, a database interface, and a network communication interface configured to connect a client device over a network.
Claim 15: A non-transitory computer readable medium, a data store, and a file system for electronically storing the case data, a database interface, and a network communication interface configured to connect a client device over a network.
The additional element of a system comprising a computing platform comprising hardware and software code are found to recite mere instructions to apply a generic computer and technology to execute the method in the recited claim limitations, as merely using a computer platform to transmit, display, and manipulate information is not an improvement to a technology or technical field. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, a method for transmitting, receiving, and processing information does not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e). 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. As the claims are merely directed to utilizing a computer to perform the steps of receiving, recording, identifying, and tracking information which are not significant improvements to the functionality of a generic computer and are directed to merely “apply it” or applying the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?): As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Merely using generic computer elements such as a processor and non-transitory computer readable medium to perform the abstract idea is not an improvement in a technology or technical field. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 further narrow the abstract idea of managing a case by providing instructions to define tasks and phases of a profile lifecycle as recited in the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not recite any additional elements that have not been evaluated in the above assessment.
Therefore, claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed July 08, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-21 under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claims are directed to a practical application as they recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer by automatically initiating a third checklist as a checklist process on the first case instance without resetting the first case instance, wherein the checklist process is executed independently from and concurrently with the execution of the first and second checklist regardless of the first case status. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the additional elements of using generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea of case management or managing a project as well as updating a project workflow are not directed to an improvement in a technology or technical field. As merely updating and executing a workflow of a project based is not an improvement in a technology or technical field. The additional elements are directed to merely “apply it” or applying generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea such as managing a project workflow by receiving a lifecycle definition, generating a checklist for a phase of the lifecycle definition, initiating a lifecycle, and updating the lifecycle. The examiner finds that the steps of initiating a third checklist in a “case instance” or a project and executing the checklist concurrently and independently from a first and second checklist merely further limits the abstract idea of managing a project and does not recite a technical improvement nor a practical application. Therefore, the claims are not directed to a practical application.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the current 101 rejection.
Applicant argues that claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are allowable as being dependent on claims 1, 8, and 15 and therefore are rejected under the same rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Mayer (US 2021/0097507) Presentation of an overview of product lifecycle risk for components in an industrial environment.
Jereb (US 2020/0103874) Lifecycle data files for industrial automation project optimization.
Roos (US 2018/0374015) System and methods of activity flows in lifecycle models.
Betry (US 2016/0110387) Product lifecycle management system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY RUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-5902. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on 5712726782. 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.
/COREY RUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights