DETAILED ACTION
A summary of this action:
Claims 1-10, and 21-33 have been presented for examination.
This action is Final.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter." Here Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mental and the claims solve a technical problem because the newly proposed claim limitations seamlessly collect and maintain project information that gives rise to the problems noted. Applicant further argues that the claims are directed to a practical application of that idea constituting concrete technological improvements that go beyond mere automation of human activity.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments because Applicant’s newly proposed claim limitations are abstract as many of the newly proposed claim limitations require the use of a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. That is, other than reciting “computing system,” “data storage system,” “non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” “one or more processors,” and “system,” “nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper because the claims are derived from Mental Processes.
Even if Applicant’s newly proposed limitations are not abstract ideas, Applicant’s newly proposed claim limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology.” All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims, as well as all claims dependent thereon are allowable under§ 103(a) over the cited references, whether taken individually or in any permissible combination, in view of the knowledge available to a person having ordinary skill in the art because Applicant does not find the relevant limitations in BAUNACH or ANAND and the combination of STEINER and BAUNACH fail to show, teach, or suggest the claimed method, computer system, or computer program product for task management using syntactic markers in messaging communications.
Examiner’s Response: Here, Applicant provide newly amended claim limitations that could not be found in the prior art. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are persuasive regarding the 103 rejections.
Therefore, the 103 rejection is Withdrawn.
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 1-10, and 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process or mathematical concept without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 11-20 are cancelled. Claims 1-10, 26-27, and 31-33 are directed to a computer implemented method, which is a process and is a statutory category invention. Claims 21-25 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is a manufacturer and is a statutory category invention. Claims 28-30 are directed to a computer system, which is a machine and is a statutory category invention. Therefore, claims 1-10 and 21-33 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 1, 4, 5, and 21, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computing system,” “data storage system,” “non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” “one or more processors,” and “system,” “nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper because the claims are derived from Mental Processes.
Claim 1 has the limitation the one or more messaging tables comprise a message table comprising a plurality of message table entries, each of which comprises a first message identifier field and a message field, which cover mental processes including assessing how to provide support for messaging by way of the messaging system and communicating with various communication paths as described [00072] of the specification.
The claim 1 limitation the one or more syntactic marker tables comprise a project table comprising a plurality of project table entries, each of which comprises a first project identifier field, which cover mental processes including assessing project identifiers that link to tasks as described [00203] of the specification.
The claim 1 limitation a syntactic marker table comprising a plurality of syntactic marker table entries, each of which comprises a syntactic marker field, a second project identifier field, and a second message identifier field, which cover mental processes including assessing on ore more syntactic marker tables and marker identifier fields as described [00115] of the specification.
The claim 1 limitation determining a message identifier for the message, which cover mental processes including assessing log entry with one another, a message identifier, and a project task log table as described [00114] of the specification.
The claim 1 limitation associating the message with a project wherein the project is identified by a project identifier stored in the first project identifier field, which cover metal processes including associating the syntactic marker and its marker identifier by their storage in the given entry of syntactic marker table as described [00116] of the specification.
The claim 1 limitation associating the message with a project comprises associating the syntactic marker and the message with one another, which cover metal processes including associating the syntactic marker and its marker identifier by their storage in the given entry of syntactic marker table as described [00116] of the specification.
The claim 1 limitation associating the message with the project comprises associating the syntactic marker and the project with one another, which cover metal processes including associating the syntactic marker and its marker identifier by their storage in the given entry of syntactic marker table as described [00116] of the specification.
The claim 1 limitation associating the syntactic marker and the project with one another, which cover mental processes including organizing information regarding the syntactic markers created in the messaging system by assigning each such marker a marker identifier, which cover metal processes including associating the syntactic marker and its marker identifier by their storage in the given entry of syntactic marker table as described [00116] of the specification.
The claim 1 limitation identifying the one or more messages by virtue of the request comprising the syntactic marker, which cover mental processes including assessing the communication database system, project management system, file storage system, and the chat messaging system as described [0086] of the specification.
The claim 1 limitation identifying the one or more messages, wherein the identifying one or more syntactic marker entries of the plurality of syntactic marker table entries having the syntactic marker stored in the syntactic marker field thereof, which cover mental processes including the update information having been received and sent to the appropriate server as described [00130] of the specification.
The claim 1 limitation for each of the one or more syntactic marker entries, identifying a corresponding message identifier stored in the second message identifier field of the each of the one or more syntactic marker entries, which cover mental processes including the messaging system, structured data framework, and application programs as described [0077] of the specification.
The claim 4 limitation a plurality of tasks, each of the plurality of tasks is identified by a corresponding task identifier of a plurality of task identifiers, which cover mental processes including assessing task identifiers maintained in a task table and task identifier fields as described [00106] of the specification.
The claim 4 limitation the one or more databases further comprise a task table, the task table comprises a plurality of task table entries, each of which comprises a first task identifier field and a third project identifier field, which cover mental processes including assessing linkages between an entry in a task table to the project of which the task is a partis identified by the project’s project identifier as described [00203] of the specification.
The claim 4 limitation each task identifier of the plurality of task identifiers is stored in the first task identifier field of a corresponding one of the plurality of task table entries, which cover mental processes including assessing a task bid table that includes a number of field including a bid identifier field, a message identifier field, a privacy field, and a task identifier field using a link stored in CDN field as described [00103-00104] of the specification.
The claim 4 limitation each of the plurality of syntactic marker table entries further comprises a second task identifier field configured to store a corresponding one of the plurality of task identifiers, which cover mental processes including a task payment table that is included as one of syntactic marker tables as described [00104] of the specification.
The claim 4 limitation the each of the plurality of message table entries further comprises a third task identifier field configured to store the corresponding one of the plurality of task identifiers, which cover mental processes including assessing fields that are used to propagate effects of changes to the database tables of syntactic marker tables as described [00107] of the specification.
The claim 4 limitation the each of the plurality of syntactic marker table entries further comprises a fourth task identifier field configured to store the corresponding one of the plurality of task identifiers, which cover mental processes including assessing any number of additional fields that can be included in the tables of syntactic marker tables as described [00109] of the specification.
The claim 4 limitation the request is for the one or more messages associated with the project and a task of the plurality of tasks, which cover mental processes awaiting receipt of a task cluster that comes from a server messaging process as described [00131] of the specification.
The claim 5 limitation the database system comprises an interface to a data storage system, which cover mental processes including a member or other individual might execute in such a user interface as described [00153] of the specification.
The claim 5 limitation the syntactic marker tables further comprise a data table comprising a plurality of data table entries, each of which comprises a fourth project identifier field, a third message identifier field, and a data link field, which cover mental processes including assessing embodiments of a messaging system where syntactic markers are presented as hyperlinks in the graphical user interface.
The claim 5 limitation the associating the message with the project further comprises identifying a storage location in the data storage system, wherein the storage location is identified using the syntactic marker, storing the data in the storage location, which cover mental processes including assessing a syntactic marker, project identifier, and/or task identifier that can be combined to form the address of a storage location as described [00104] of the specification.
The claim 5 limitation associating the syntactic marker and data with one another, which cover mental processes including assessing the entries of a data table associated with a project identified by a project identifier maintained in the project table as described [00105] of the specification.
Claim 21 has the additional limitation comprising program instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, perform a method cover mental processes including evaluating computer program code that can be executed by the processors as a particular machine configured for carrying out the operations and functions as described in [00206] of the specification.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 21 recites the additional element of “computing system" as in independent claims 21, and dependent claims 29 and 30, "one or more processors" as in independent claims 21 and independent claim 28, " data storage system" as in independent claim 5 and dependent claim 25, “non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” as in independent claim 21 and dependent claims 22-25, and “system,” as in dependent claim 28, this limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite receiving a message and a syntactic marker at a messaging system, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite creating a messaging communication configured to be transmitted to a recipient via the messaging system wherein the messaging communication comprises the message and the syntactic marker, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite interface with a database system comprising one or more databases that comprise one or more messaging tables and one or more syntactic marker tables, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite the plurality of messages comprises the one or more messages, which comprise the message; and in response to the request, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite storing the message in the message field of a message table entry of the plurality of message table entries and the message identifier in the first message identifier field of the message table entry, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite storing the syntactic marker in the syntactic marker field of a syntactic marker table entry of the plurality of syntactic marker table entries and the message identifier in the second message identifier field of the syntactic marker table entry, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite storing the project identifier in the second project identifier field of the syntactic marker table entry, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite transmitting the messaging communication to the recipient via the messaging system, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite receiving a request from a client system for one or more messages associated with the project, wherein the request facilitates identifying the one or more messages by virtue of the request comprising the syntactic marker, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite the messaging system is configured to maintain each of a plurality of messages in a corresponding one of a plurality of messaging communications stored in a corresponding one of the plurality of message table entries, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite the plurality of messages comprises the one or more messages, which comprise the message; and in response to the request, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite retrieving a stored message from the message field of a one of the plurality of message table entries corresponding to the corresponding message identifier, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite providing the stored message to the client system, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 2, 22, and 29 similarly recite receiving a status request from a project management system, wherein the status request facilitates provision of at least one message to the project management system by virtue of the status request comprising the syntactic marker, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 2, 22, and 29 similarly recite the project management system is configured to interface with the database system, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 2, 22, and 29 similarly recite retrieving at least one session identifier stored in the second session identifier field of at least one message table entry of the plurality of message table entries corresponding to the message identifier in the second message identifier field of the at least one syntactic marker entry, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 2, 22, and 29 similarly recite retrieving the at least one message from the communication field of the at least one conversation table entry, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 2, 22, and 29 similarly recite providing the at least one message to the project management system, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 3 and 23 similarly recite retrieving user information for at least one user from the one or more user information fields of at least one user table entry of the plurality of user table entries having a user identifier stored therein corresponding to the at least one user identifier stored in the at least one session table entry, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 3 and 23 similarly recite providing the at least one message to the project management system, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 4, 24, and 30 similarly recite performing the retrieving the stored message and the providing the stored message only if a task identifier stored in the fourth task identifier field of the one or more syntactic marker entries is the same as the task identifier, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 5 and 25 similarly recite data is received with the messaging communication, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 5 and 25 similarly recite storing the project identifier in the fourth project identifier field, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 5 and 25 similarly recite storing the message identifier in the third message identifier field, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 5 and 25 similarly recite storing the storage location in the data link field, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 8 and 27 similarly recite organizing the plurality of messaging communications into a task feed, using the syntactic marker, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 10 recites assigning the task to a recipient of the messaging communication, wherein the recipient is assigned the task as a result of the messaging communication being associated with the task by the syntactic marker, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 31 recites retrieving a status stored in the status field of a log table entry of the plurality of log table entries corresponding to the project identifier in the second project identifier field of the at least one syntactic marker entry, and providing the status of the project to the project management system, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 32 recites in response to a determination that the change affects the preceding task, updating the status field of the log table entry identified by a preceding task identifier stored in the preceding task identifier field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 32 recites in response to a determination that the change affects the subsequent task, updating the status field of the log table entry identified by a subsequent task identifier stored in the subsequent task identifier field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 33 recites the updating the status field of the log table entry identified by a preceding task identifier stored in the preceding task identifier field further comprises updating one or more of the bid information fields of a preceding task bid table entry of the plurality of task bid table entries to the preceding task identifier, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 33 recites the updating the status field of the log table entry identified by a subsequent task identifier stored in the subsequent task identifier field further comprises updating one or more of the bid information fields of a subsequent task bid table entry of the plurality of task bid table entries to the subsequent task identifier, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-10 and 22-33 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims do not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not amount to significantly more. The judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Claim 21 recites the additional element of “computing system" as in independent claims 21, and dependent claims 29 and 30, "one or more processors" as in independent claims 21 and independent claim 28, " data storage system" as in independent claim 5 and dependent claim 25, “non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” as in independent claim 21 and dependent claims 22-25, and “system,” as in dependent claim 28, this limitation does not amount to significantly more because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite receiving a message and a syntactic marker at a messaging system, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite creating a messaging communication configured to be transmitted to a recipient via the messaging system wherein the messaging communication comprises the message and the syntactic marker, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite interface with a database system comprising one or more databases that comprise one or more messaging tables and one or more syntactic marker tables, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite the plurality of messages comprises the one or more messages, which comprise the message; and in response to the request, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite storing the message in the message field of a message table entry of the plurality of message table entries and the message identifier in the first message identifier field of the message table entry, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite storing the syntactic marker in the syntactic marker field of a syntactic marker table entry of the plurality of syntactic marker table entries and the message identifier in the second message identifier field of the syntactic marker table entry, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite storing the project identifier in the second project identifier field of the syntactic marker table entry, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite transmitting the messaging communication to the recipient via the messaging system, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite receiving a request from a client system for one or more messages associated with the project, wherein the request facilitates identifying the one or more messages by virtue of the request comprising the syntactic marker, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite the messaging system is configured to maintain each of a plurality of messages in a corresponding one of a plurality of messaging communications stored in a corresponding one of the plurality of message table entries, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite the plurality of messages comprises the one or more messages, which comprise the message; and in response to the request, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite retrieving a stored message from the message field of a one of the plurality of message table entries corresponding to the corresponding message identifier, does not amount to significantly more because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 21, and 28 similarly recite providing the stored message to the client system, does not amount to significantly more because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 2, 22, and 29 similarly recite receiving a status request from a project management system, wherein the status request facilitates provision of at least one message to the project management system by virtue of the status request comprising the syntactic marker, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 2, 22, and 29 similarly recite the project management system is configured to interface with the database system, does not amount to significantly more because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 2, 22, and 29 similarly recite retrieving at least one session identifier stored in the second session identifier field of at least one message table entry of the plurality of message table entries corresponding to the message identifier in the second message identifier field of the at least one syntactic marker entry, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 2, 22, and 29 similarly recite retrieving the at least one message from the communication field of the at least one conversation table entry, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 2, 22, and 29 similarly recite providing the at least one message to the project management system, does not amount to significantly more because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 3 and 23 similarly recite retrieving user information for at least one user from the one or more user information fields of at least one user table entry of the plurality of user table entries having a user identifier stored therein corresponding to the at least one user identifier stored in the at least one session table entry, does not amount to significantly more because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 3 and 23 similarly recite providing the at least one message to the project management system, does not amount to significantly more because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 4, 24, and 30 similarly recite performing the retrieving the stored message and the providing the stored message only if a task identifier stored in the fourth task identifier field of the one or more syntactic marker entries is the same as the task identifier, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 5 and 25 similarly recite data is received with the messaging communication, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 5 and 25 similarly recite storing the project identifier in the fourth project identifier field, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 5 and 25 similarly recite storing the message identifier in the third message identifier field, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 5 and 25 similarly recite storing the storage location in the data link field, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 8 and 27 similarly recite organizing the plurality of messaging communications into a task feed, using the syntactic marker, does not amount to significantly more because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 10 recites assigning the task to a recipient of the messaging communication, wherein the recipient is assigned the task as a result of the messaging communication being associated with the task by the syntactic marker, does not amount to significantly more because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 31 recites retrieving a status stored in the status field of a log table entry of the plurality of log table entries corresponding to the project identifier in the second project identifier field of the at least one syntactic marker entry, and providing the status of the project to the project management system, does not amount to significantly more because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 32 recites in response to a determination that the change affects the preceding task, updating the status field of the log table entry identified by a preceding task identifier stored in the preceding task identifier field, does not amount to significantly more because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 32 recites in response to a determination that the change affects the subsequent task, updating the status field of the log table entry identified by a subsequent task identifier stored in the subsequent task identifier field, does not amount to significantly more because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 33 recites the updating the status field of the log table entry identified by a preceding task identifier stored in the preceding task identifier field further comprises updating one or more of the bid information fields of a preceding task bid table entry of the plurality of task bid table entries to the preceding task identifier, does not amount to significantly more because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 33 recites the updating the status field of the log table entry identified by a subsequent task identifier stored in the subsequent task identifier field further comprises updating one or more of the bid information fields of a subsequent task bid table entry of the plurality of task bid table entries to the subsequent task identifier, does not amount to significantly more because it is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-10, and 22-33 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they amount to significantly more. Therefore, the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2, 22, and 29 similarly recite “the one or more databases further comprise a conversation table, the conversation table comprises a plurality of conversation table entries, each of which comprises a first session identifier field and a communication field,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 2, 22, and 29 similarly recite “the each of the plurality of message table entries further comprises a second session identifier field,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 2, 22, and 29 similarly recite “identifying at least one message of the plurality of messages using the syntactic marker, wherein the identifying the at least one message of the plurality of messages comprises identifying at least one syntactic marker entry of the plurality of syntactic marker table entries having the syntactic marker stored in the syntactic marker field thereof,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 2, 22, and 29 similarly recite “identifying at least one conversation table entry of the plurality of conversation table entries having the at least one session identifier stored in the first session identifier field thereof,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 3 and 23 similarly recite “the one or more databases further comprise a user table and a session table, the user table comprises a plurality of user table entries, each of which comprises a first user identifier field and one or more user information fields, each user table entry of the plurality of user table entries represents a user of a plurality of users of the messaging system,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 3 and 23 similarly recite “the session table comprises a plurality of session table entries, each of which comprises a third session identifier field and a second user identifier field, each conversation table entry of the plurality of conversation table entries represents a set of messages, of the plurality of messages, between ones of the plurality of users,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 3 and 23 similarly recite “identifying at least one session table entry of the plurality of session table entries having the at least one session identifier stored in the third session identifier field thereof,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 6 recites “presenting the syntactic marker as a hyperlink in a graphical user interface in which the message is presented by the messaging system, wherein selection of the hyperlink by a user using the graphical user interface presents the at least one message and the data in the graphical user interface,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 7 and 26 similarly recite “associating other messaging communications of the one or more messaging communications by associating the other messaging communications with the syntactic marker, wherein the other messaging communications are ones of the one or more messaging communications other than the messaging communication,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 8 and 27 similarly recite “identifying the one or more messaging communications of the plurality of messaging communications using the syntactic marker, and presenting the one or more messaging communications as being associated with the syntactic marker,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 9 and 27 similarly recite “wherein the task feed is presented in a graphical user interface of the messaging system by presenting the one or more messaging communications in a chronological order,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 31 recites “the one or more databases further comprise a log table, the log table comprises a plurality of log table entries, each of which comprises a fifth project identifier field, a fourth message identifier field, and a status field,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 31 recites “identifying a status of the project, comprising subsequent to the identifying the at least one syntactic marker entry,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 32 recites “the each of the plurality of task table entries further comprises a preceding task identifier field and a subsequent task identifier field,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 32 recites “in response to a change in the status stored in the status field of a log table entry of the plurality of log table entries corresponding to the project identifier in the second project identifier field of the at least one syntactic marker entry,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 32 recites “determining whether the change affects a preceding task of the plurality of tasks by referring to the preceding task identifier field,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 32 recites “determining whether the change affects a subsequent task of the plurality of tasks by referring to the subsequent task identifier field,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 33 recites “the one or more databases further comprise a task bid table, the task bid table comprises a plurality of task bid table entries, each of which comprises a fourth message identifier field, a second task identifier field, and a bid information field,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 33 recites “the one or more databases further comprise a task bid table, the task bid table comprises a plurality of task bid table entries, each of which comprises a fourth message identifier field, a second task identifier field, and a bid information field,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-10 and 21-33 are ineligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 21-33 are objected to, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 rejections of the claims. The claims would be allowable if they overcome the 101 rejection above. The closest pieces of prior art are the STEINER (US 20080295164 A1), BAUNACH (US 20200210053 A1), ANAND (US 2019/0213284 A1), MCVICKER (WO 2009049300 A1), and BLAKE (WO 2014169349 A1) references. The closest references alone and in combination do not teach the equations as claimed in the independent and dependent claims. Therefore, the claims overcome the closest pieces of prior art such that none of the closest prior art references can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARTIN K VU whose telephone number is (703)756-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am to 4:30 pm M-F.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached on 571-270-1104. 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.
/M.K.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186