DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 8/22/2025. Claims 1, 8, 10, 18 and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's arguments filed 8/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The previously pending rejection to claims 1-20, under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, has been withdrawn.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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, system claims 1-9 are directed to one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions, method claims 10-18 are directed to a series of steps, and computer-readable storage medium claims 19 and 20 are directed to instructions being executable by one or more processors. Thus, the claims are directed to a process, machine and manufacture, respectively.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite task management, including receiving, generating, assigning, ranking, and updating steps.
The limitations of receiving, generating, assigning, ranking, and updating, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite receive task information for a plurality of tasks wherein the plurality of tasks is related to completing a project by one or more users; generate a task graph representative of tasks for a plurality of users based on the received task information, wherein the task graph includes a plurality of nodes and at least one node of the plurality of nodes is generated for at least one task of the plurality of tasks, wherein a common edge between the plurality of users is generated when a plurality of common tasks is shared between the plurality of users; assign an edge type to an edge existing between the at least one node of the plurality of nodes and another node in the task graph, wherein the edge type indicates commonality among the plurality of common tasks; generate, based on at least a portion of the task graph including the edge type, task significance information for at least one task of the plurality tasks; rank the plurality of tasks for the plurality of users by the tasks impact on the progress of the project towards completion and by the task’s relevance to concurrent tasks; generate the common edge according to a change in status of the tasks; dynamically update the task graph based on changing information and new information; and update at least one graphical representation of a task based on updated task graph.
That is, other than reciting one or more hardware processors and a user interface, the claim limitations merely cover managing interactions between people, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include one or more hardware processors and a user interface. The one or more hardware processors and user interface in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of one or more hardware processors and a user interface amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-4 recite additional ranking, updating, receiving, filtering, and generating steps. Claims 5-7 receiving and generating steps and further describe the edge type, and the task information. Claims 8 and 9 recite additional receiving, updating, generating, and identifying steps. Similarly, dependent claims 11-18 and 20 recite additional details that further restrict/define the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, one or more hardware processors and a user interface.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 0056 of the specification, “In addition, embodiments of the disclosure may be practiced within a general-purpose computer or in any other circuits or systems.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alphin, III et al (US 20180284959 A1), in view of Standefer, III et al (US 20180197125 A1).
As per claim 1, Alphin, III et al disclose a system, comprising: one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions (figure 3) to:
receive task information for a plurality of tasks (i.e., collecting data regarding user activities, organizing the information, such as associating user actions with a single activity, rather than as a series of isolated actions and grouping one or more activities in a set (which can represent a task), ¶ 0038) wherein the plurality of tasks is related to completing a project by one or more users (i.e., users engage in multiple activities with one or more computer devices in order to accomplish a particular task. For a work project, a user may carry out activities using a web browser, a word processor, a spreadsheet program, and a presentation authoring program, ¶ 0035);
generate a task graph representative of tasks for a plurality of users based on the received task information, wherein the task graph includes a plurality of nodes and at least one node of the plurality of nodes is generated for at least one task of the plurality of tasks (i.e., FIG. 4 illustrates an example graph 400 that includes vertices (or nodes) representing activities 410 (which can be activities or individual history records for an activity), tasks 414 (where connected activities can represent activities in a set or collection associated with the task), ¶ 0170, wherein user input is received associating one or more of the plurality of user activities with a task record that includes a task identifier and the activity identifiers of the associate user activities. The one or more of the plurality of user activities are associated with the task record in response to the user input at 1040. At 1050, the task record is stored in a data structure, such as a queue, list, stack, heap, tree, or graph, ¶ 0234),
wherein a common edge between the plurality of users is generated when a plurality of common tasks is shared between the plurality of users (i.e., In addition to specifying a relationship between vertices, edges can represent (or include information useable to indicate) a type of relationship between vertices. For example, a navigational mnemonic 418 may be related to an activity or another navigational mnemonic because they occurred in temporal proximity, or the relationship may be because they occurred at the same location, or involved one or more of the same people (e.g., a person who was a collaborator on a document and to whom a phone call was made), ¶ 0177);
assign an edge type to an edge existing between the at least one node of the plurality of nodes and another node in the task graph (i.e., Relationships or associations between vertices are represented by the presence of an edge between vertices. Edges are typically undirected, but can be directed if appropriate for a particular relationship or association, ¶ 0170), wherein the edge type indicates commonality among the plurality of common tasks (i.e., edges can represent (or include information useable to indicate) a type of relationship between vertices. For example, a navigational mnemonic 418 may be related to an activity or another navigational mnemonic because they occurred in temporal proximity, or the relationship may be because they occurred at the same location, or involved one or more of the same people, ¶ 0177);
generate, based on at least a portion of the task graph including the edge type, task significance information for at least one task of the plurality tasks (i.e., The global relevance indicator 210 can be used, for example, to rank task records 200 (or activity records 218) by relative importance. In at least some aspects, the global relevance identifier 210 can rank tasks 200 by relevance, ¶ 0089); and
generate the common edge according to a change in status of the tasks (i.e., Tasks 130 can be dynamic, in that they can be created, modified by adding or removing activities 110 from the task, and deleted. In at least some cases, when a task 130 is deleted, or an activity 110 is removed from the task, the activities associated with the task, or removed from the task, are not deleted—the association between the task and the activity is simply removed, ¶ 0080).
Alphin, III et al does not disclose rank the plurality of tasks for the plurality of users by the tasks impact on the progress of the project towards completion and by the task's relevance to concurrent tasks; dynamically update the task graph based on changing information and new information and update at least one graphical representation of a task displayed at a user interface based on updated task graph.
Standefer, III et al disclose Client devices 102A-C may collect and aggregate the query results for the task storage locations. The aggregated query results may be analyzed to generate rich task data, and/or to determine associations between tasks, associations between tasks and users, task dependencies, task classifications, task priority levels, task statuses, task optimizations, task resource allocations, etc. Client devices 102A-C may then generate or receive a result for the queried user accounts and/or user tasks. The result may be presented to a user via, for example, the interface component (¶ 0029).
In other aspects, identifying tasks may comprise receiving notifications related to task status, task creation and/or task modification. For example, a task managing component may receive a task completion notification from an application, service or notification interface. In another example, an isolated collection may receive an update from a resource provider, such as resource providers 412 and 414. The update may be received via a webhook (e.g., an API used for event notification) and may dictate a modification to a pointer in the isolated collection corresponding to the resource provider (¶ 0050).
The tasks of one or more views may be ranked to indicate task priority or importance. For example, tasks in a set of tasks may be assigned scores and/or weights based on an evaluation of the set of tasks. The scores and/or weights may be generated using one or more scoring models or algorithms. The scored tasks may then be ranked and/or organized within the corresponding views to indicate task importance and task priority. In examples, the views may additionally comprise the scores, weights, an indication of task importance/priority and/or other ranking logic. In at least one aspect, the tasks of one or more views may be ranked and/or organized to indicate one or more task dependencies. For example, tasks in a set of tasks may be evaluated to determine dependencies or criteria for executing the tasks or portions/steps thereof. The dependencies/criteria may be illustrated in a corresponding view by, for example, presenting the task and dependencies as a numbered/alphabetical list, presenting the dependencies of a task as bullets to the task, inserting arrowed lines between tasks, presenting the criteria upon a selection or hover event of the task, etc. (¶ 0058).
Alphin, III et al and Standefer, III et al are concerned with effective task management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include rank the plurality of tasks for the plurality of users by the tasks impact on the progress of the project towards completion and by the task's relevance to concurrent tasks; dynamically update the task graph based on changing information and new information and update at least one graphical representation of a task displayed at a user interface based on updated task graph in Alphin, III, as seen in Standefer, III et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Alphin, III et al disclose the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to: rank the at least one task of the plurality of tasks based on the task significance information (i.e., The global relevance indicator 210 can be used, for example, to rank task records 200 (or activity records 218) by relative importance. In at least some aspects, the global relevance identifier 210 can rank tasks 200 by relevance, ¶ 0089); and update the at least one graphical representation of the task displayed at the user interface based on the rank associated with the at least one task of the plurality of tasks (i.e., new task records 200, and changes to tasks records, can be automatically sent to the cloud service, and computer devices for the appropriate collaborators updated, ¶ 0091).
As per claim 3, Alphin, III et al disclose the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to: receive a filtering parameter; receive the task graph for a plurality of users based on the received task information; filter the plurality of nodes using the received filtering parameter to obtain a first task graph (i.e., a filtering mechanism is applied to user activity, or at least user activity reporting by a monitoring component, such that not all user activity results in a history record 120, ¶ 0074, wherein user input is received associating one or more of the plurality of user activities with a task record that includes a task identifier and the activity identifiers of the associate user activities. The one or more of the plurality of user activities are associated with the task record in response to the user input at 1040. At 1050, the task record is stored in a data structure, such as a queue, list, stack, heap, tree, or graph, ¶ 0234); and generate, based on the first task graph, task significance information for the at least one task of the plurality tasks (i.e., a history record 120 may be generated and used to help determine the relevance of the activity 110 associated with the history record 120, or other history records, ¶ 0076).
As per claim 4, Alphin, III et al disclose the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to: receive a second filtering parameter; filter the plurality of nodes using the received second filtering parameter to obtain a second task graph (i.e., a filtering mechanism is applied to user activity, or at least user activity reporting by a monitoring component, such that not all user activity results in a history record 120, ¶ 0074); and generate, based on the first task graph and the second task graph, task significance information for the at least one task of the plurality tasks (i.e., a history record 120 may be generated and used to help determine the relevance of the activity 110 associated with the history record 120, or other history records, ¶ 0076).
As per claim 5, Alphin, III et al disclose the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to: receive, at a machine learning model trained on task significance information, at least a portion of the task graph; and generate, based on the at least a portion of the task graph, the task significance information for the least one task of the plurality tasks using the machine learning model (i.e., Relevance can be determined, or refined, using machine learning techniques. For instance, if activities 110 are marked as relevant, but a user instead views information regarding other activities, the definition of relevance, or assigned relevance values, can be modified. Similarly, heuristics can be used to create or adjust relevance values, ¶ 0070).
As per claim 6, Alphin, III et al disclose the edge type between the at least one node of the plurality of nodes and the other node in the task graph is based on task information that is common to the at least one node of the plurality of nodes and the other node in the task graph (i.e., Relationships or associations between vertices are represented by the presence of an edge between vertices. Edges are typically undirected, but can be directed if appropriate for a particular relationship or association, ¶ 0170).
As per claim 7, Alphin, III et al disclose the task information includes at least one of an assignee, assignor, a due date, a resource, a priority information, and a dependency on another task (i.e., as described above, in some aspects of the disclosed innovations, tasks can be associated with, or assigned to, various user interface elements, such as using a “pinning” modality. The display 900 shows a task icon or image 935 pinned to a taskbar user interface element 940, ¶ 0232).
As per claim 8, Alphin, III et al disclose the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to: receive second task information for the plurality of tasks; update an existing task graph for a plurality of users based on the received second task information, wherein the updated task graph includes a plurality of nodes and at least one node of the plurality of nodes is generated for at least one task of the plurality of tasks; generate, based on at least a portion of the updated task graph, task significance information for at least one task of the plurality tasks; and update at least one graphical representation of a task displayed at a user interface (i.e., collecting data regarding user activities, organizing the information, such as associating user actions with a single activity, rather than as a series of isolated actions and grouping one or more activities in a set (which can represent a task), ¶ 0038. The global relevance indicator 210 can be used, for example, to rank task records 200 (or activity records 218) by relative importance. In at least some aspects, the global relevance identifier 210 can rank tasks 200 by relevance, ¶ 0089, wherein new task records 200, and changes to tasks records, can be automatically sent to the cloud service, and computer devices for the appropriate collaborators updated, ¶ 0091. FIG. 4 illustrates an example graph 400 that includes vertices (or nodes) representing activities 410 (which can be activities or individual history records for an activity), tasks 414 (where connected activities can represent activities in a set or collection associated with the task), ¶ 0170, wherein user input is received associating one or more of the plurality of user activities with a task record that includes a task identifier and the activity identifiers of the associate user activities. The one or more of the plurality of user activities are associated with the task record in response to the user input at 1040. At 1050, the task record is stored in a data structure, such as a queue, list, stack, heap, tree, or graph, ¶ 0234).
As per claim 9, Alphin, III et al disclose the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to: identify the at least one task as a blocking task based on the at least one node of the plurality of nodes having a plurality of inter-task dependencies (i.e., The activity representations 504 can be positioned on the display 500 in a particular order. In some cases, the order can be chronological (e.g., chronological or reverse-chronological). In other cases, the order can be based on relevance, with more relevant activity representations 504 being listed before less relevant activity representations, ¶ 0182).
Claims 10-18 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1-8, respectively, since they are the method claims corresponding to the system claims.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1-3, respectively, since they are the computer-readable storage medium claims corresponding to the system claims.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant argues that the Office Action asserted that claim 1 falls within the 'Mental Process' grouping of abstract ideas." Amended claim 1, under its broadest interpretation, is directed to a technical solution to solve the technical problem of determining an importance of a task based on the impact of the task to the progress of a project that may be implemented by a group or person. According to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), "A Claim With Limitation(s) That Cannot Practically be Performed in the Human Mind Does Not Recite a Mental Process. Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. See…SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 94 USPQ2d 1607 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that 'could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human's mind')."
Amended claim 1 recites the limitations of "dynamically update the task graph based on changing information and new information; and update at least one graphical representation of a task displayed at a user interface based on the updated task graph." At least the above limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a human mind cannot practically perform "dynamically update the task graph" and provide information based on the "updated task graph" to a display. Applying the rule in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), claim 1 does not fall into the grouping of mental process.
Even assuming, arguendo, amended claim 1 falls into the grouping of a mental process, amended claim 1 is still not directed to an abstract idea because amended claim 1 as a whole integrates the alleged judicial exceptions into a practical application (e.g., "dynamically update the task graph based on changing information and new information; and update at least one graphical representation of a task displayed at a user interface based on the updated task graph").
According to MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1), "[a] claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field." Applying the rule set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1), amended claim 1 recites
specific improvements to the technical field of determining an importance of a task based on the impact of the task to the progress of a project that may be implemented by a group or person.
For example, amended claim 1 recites limitations of "dynamically update the task graph based on changing information and new information; and update at least one graphical representation of a task displayed at a user interface based on the updated task graph.” Such features help to efficiently update the task graph.
Additionally, these data analysis steps are different from "a claim to 'collecting
information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,' where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A." (id.; 48 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Contrarily to Electric Power Group, amended claim 1 recites detailed features (e.g., "dynamically update the task graph based on changing information and new information; and update at least one graphical representation of a task displayed at a user interface based on the updated task graph" etc.), which are beyond a high-level of generality. MPEP § 2106.05(a) further explains that "the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology…In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim 'as a whole,' in other words, the claim should be evaluated 'as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps.' When performing this evaluation, examiners should be 'careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims' by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100." Applying the rules of MPEP here, claim 1 recites limitations of "dynamically update the task graph based on changing information and new information; and update at least one graphical representation of a task displayed at a user interface based on the updated task graph."
Even assuming, arguendo, amended claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea, amended claim 1 is patent eligible because it recites additional elements that are "unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field." (Section III(B) of 2019 PEG.).
According to MPEP § 2106.05(a), "[a]n important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome" and "the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception."
Applying the rule set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(a), amended claim 1 recites a particular solution to address the computer-centric challenge of determining an importance of a task based on the impact of the task to the progress of a project that may be implemented by a group or person. For example, claim 1 recites "dynamically update the task graph based on changing information and new information; and update at least one graphical representation of a task displayed at a user interface based on the updated task graph." These features are neither well-understood, routine, nor conventional in the field.
Further, according to MPEP § 2106.05, "[l]imitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:... Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b))." (MPEP § 2106.05). Similarly, here, claim 1 recites and uses a particular machine, such as dynamically updated graph presented on a display. Accordingly, the limitations recited in claim 1 qualifies as "significantly more". The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As an initial point, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claims are not rejected based upon the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Rather, as discussed above, other than reciting one or more hardware processors and a user interface, the claim limitations merely cover managing interactions between people (i.e., task management in a project environment), thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Besides the abstract idea, the claims include one or more hardware processors and a user interface.
The one or more hardware processors and a user interface in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use computer components as a tool (i.e., one or more hardware processors and a user interface). There is no change to the computers and/or other technology recited in the claims, thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, one or more hardware processors and a user interface. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 0056 of the specification, “In addition, embodiments of the disclosure may be practiced within a general-purpose computer or in any other circuits or systems.” As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Applicant also argues that Standefer, however, fails to teach or suggest that "dynamically update the task graph based on changing information and new information" as recited by claim 1. This is because while Standefer arguably teaches system updates to reflect the current status of tasks, Standefer still fails to teach or suggest updating the task status (e.g., task graph) dynamically based on received changes or new information.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the updated rejection, Standefer, III et al indeed disclose Applicant’s amended claim language.
Specifically, Standefer, III et al disclose identifying tasks may comprise receiving notifications related to task status, task creation and/or task modification. For example, a task managing component may receive a task completion notification from an application, service or notification interface. In another example, an isolated collection may receive an update from a resource provider, such as resource providers 412 and 414. The update may be received via a webhook (e.g., an API used for event notification) and may dictate a modification to a pointer in the isolated collection corresponding to the resource provider (¶ 0050).
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 ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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 (Rob) 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 November 20, 2025