DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The applicant's submission, the “AMENDMENT AND RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR 1.114” filed on 16 March 2026 (hereinafter referred to as the “Amendment/Response”), has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-21, as presented in the Amendment/Response.
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, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection. The rationales are based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106.
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) Referring to the pending claims, the “method” of claims 1 and 4-7 constitutes a process under 35 USC 101, the “product” of claims 8 and 11-14 constitutes a manufacture under the statute, and the “system” of claims 15 and 18-21 constitutes a machine under the statute. Accordingly, claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-21 meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The claims, however, fail to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Using claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“A ... method comprising: collecting ... completed tasks data for ended sprints of a team and planned tasks data for future sprints by the team, wherein: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... the completed tasks data for ended sprints includes actual resource capacity and completed plan data, wherein the actual resource capacity includes a number of workdays performed by the team during each of the ended sprints and the completed plan data includes story points completed by the team during each of the ended sprints, and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... the planned tasks data for future sprints includes expected resource capacity and future plan data, wherein the expected resource capacity includes a number of workdays expected for the team to be available in a future sprint and the future plan data includes a number of story points planned in a future sprint; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... calculating ... a velocity of each of the ended sprints and a velocity for the team across multiple ended sprints using the completed tasks data for ended sprints; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... calculating ... a story point prediction for the future sprints by the team using the velocity for the team based on the multiple ended sprints and the expected resource capacity from the planned tasks data for future sprints; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... generating and outputting to a display ... a visualization of the story point prediction for the future sprints by the team, the visualization including multiple future sprints by the team and ... selecting a number of ended sprints to include in the velocity for the team, wherein the visualization provides an improvement to software project management tools by accounting for varying workdays to reduce deviation from the future plan data; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... receiving an input ... including a selection for the number of ended sprints to include in the velocity for the team; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... responsive to the input ..., re-calculating the velocity for each of the ended sprints and the velocity for the team to account for variations in the actual resource capacity, re-calculating the story point prediction, and re-generating and re-outputting the visualization of the story point prediction ... using the selection for the number of ended sprints ..., the visualization providing a ... visual comparison between the future plan data and the story point prediction, wherein the story point prediction varies for each of the future sprints as the expected resource capacity varies for each of the future sprints ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... updating the visualization and the ... visual comparison in response to additional inputs ... related to the future plan data and the expected resource capacity.” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
The above-listed limitations of claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as: mathematical calculations, which fall under the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Limitations of the claim also can be characterized as: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (associated with teams, and members thereof, performing sprints while working together on projects), which fall under the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Limitations of the claim also can be characterized as: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (e.g., the recited “collecting” and “receiving” steps), evaluation (e.g., the recited “calculating” and “re-calculating” steps), and judgment (e.g., the recited “updating” step), which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) Continuing to use claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following additional element limitations:
The claimed “method” is “computer-implemented” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “collecting” is performed “by a computing device, from a database” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “calculating” is performed “by the computing device” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “generating and outputting” is performed “by the computing device” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “visualization” is one “further including a graphical user interface (GUI) having a user-selectable and slidable graphical implement for” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “receiving an input” is performed “via the user-selectable graphical implement” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “re-outputting” is performed “in real-time” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The “slidable graphical implement remaining visible and selectable on the GUI” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “visual comparison” is “real-time” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “varies” is “responsive to manipulation in real-time of the slidable graphical implement” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “additional inputs” are “in the GUI” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The above-listed additional element limitations of claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, mere automation of manual processes, instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic 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, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated in the form of selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in an environment, for collection, analysis, and display, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. Further, claim 1 also fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B because at least some of the additional elements are analogous to: performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting.
Regarding pending claims 4-7, the claims depend from claim 1, and expand upon limitations introduced by claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. For example, the dependent claims recite abstract idea elements similar to the abstract idea elements of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “wherein calculating the velocity includes: summing story points from the completed plan data; summing workdays for the team from the actual resource capacity; and dividing the summed story points by the summed workdays to arrive at the velocity for the team” of claim 4, the “wherein calculating the story point prediction includes multiplying the expected resource capacity by the velocity” of claim 5, the “wherein generating and outputting the visualization includes generating and outputting to the display, ... the visualization of the story point prediction and the future plan data for the future sprints by the team” of claim 6, the “wherein: the actual resource capacity and the expected resource capacity are measured in workdays; and the completed plan data and the future planned data are measured in story points” of claim 7). The dependent claims recite further additional elements that are similar to the additional elements of claim 1, that fail to warrant eligibility for the same reasons as the additional elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “computer-implemented” of claims 4-7, and the “by the computing device” of claim 6). Accordingly, claims 4-7 also are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding pending claims 8 and 11-14, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1 and 4-7, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1 and 4-7. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1 and 4-7 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 8 and 11-14. Limitations recited by claims 8 and 11-14 that do not have a counterpart in claims 1 and 4-7, such as the recited “computer program product, the computer program product being tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and including executable code that, when executed, causes a computing device to” limitations of independent claim 8, fail to warrant a finding of eligibility, because such limitations amount to additional elements that fail to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B, for the same reasons as the additional elements of claims 1 and 4-7. Claims 8 and 11-14 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding pending claims 15 and 18-21, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1 and 4-7 and to claims 8 and 11-14, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1, 4-8, and 11-14. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1, 4-8, and 11-14 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 15 and 18-21. Claims 15 and 18-21 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Examiner Comments
This Office Action does not assert any prior art rejections against the pending claims. This is because the pending claims distinguish over the prior art of record. The Non-Final Rejection mailed 18 June 2024 asserted claim rejections under 35 USC 103 based on combinations of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2016/0364675 A1 to Sharma et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Sharma”), U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2016/0364210 A1 to Davidov et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Davidov”), U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2016/0274904 A1 to Niazi et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Niazi”), U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2016/0360009 A1 to Borley et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Borley”), and U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0256453 A1 to Morgan et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Morgan”), which represent the closest prior art of record. As explained in the Non-Final Rejection, the combination of Sharma and Davidov teaches multiple limitations found in claim 1, and where they are deficient, Niazi teaches a slider bar for adjusting coverage of a x-axis scale (see paras. [0074], [0077], and [0079]-[0081]. Niazi does not, however, teach or suggest the recited “responsive to the input via the user-selectable and slidable graphical implement, re-calculating the velocity for each of the ended sprints and the velocity for the team to account for variations in the actual resource capacity, re-calculating the story point prediction, and re-generating and re-outputting the visualization of the story point prediction in real-time using the selection for the number of ended sprints with the slidable graphical implement remaining visible and selectable on the GUI, the visualization providing a real-time visual comparison between the future plan data and the story point prediction, wherein the story point prediction varies for each of the future sprints as the expected resource capacity varies for each of the future sprints and responsive to manipulation in real-time of the slidable graphical implement” limitations of claim 1, as changing an x-axis scale using a slider bar would not necessarily involve re-calculating values, like values for velocities or story point predictions in Sharma, Davidov, and Niazi. And neither Borley nor Morgan remedy the deficiencies of the combination of Sharma, Davidov, and Niazi. For these reasons, and for reasons specified in the Interview Summary mailed 11 December 2024, claim 1 distinguishes over the prior art of record. Claims 4-7 depend from claim 1, and are viewed similarly due to their dependency. Claims 8 and 11-14 and claims 15 and 18-21, respectively, recite limitations similar to those of claims 1 and 4-7, and also distinguish over the prior art of record for similar reasons.
WIPO Int’l Pub. No. 2022/038666 A1 to Ikegaya et al. (hereinafter referred to “Ikegaya”) and previously-cited Ahmed, Ali Raza, et al. "Impact of story point estimation on product using metrics in scrum development process." International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications 8.4 (2017) (hereinafter referred to as “Ahmed”), represent the closest foreign publication and non-patent literature of record, as they both teach visualizations, such as graphs, of sprint, story point, and general scrum values. The pending claims, however, also distinguish over Ikegaya and Ahmed because they also fail to disclose or suggest the recited “responsive to the input via the user-selectable and slidable graphical implement, re-calculating the velocity for each of the ended sprints and the velocity for the team to account for variations in the actual resource capacity, re-calculating the story point prediction, and re-generating and re-outputting the visualization of the story point prediction in real-time using the selection for the number of ended sprints with the slidable graphical implement remaining visible and selectable on the GUI, the visualization providing a real-time visual comparison between the future plan data and the story point prediction, wherein the story point prediction varies for each of the future sprints as the expected resource capacity varies for each of the future sprints and responsive to manipulation in real-time of the slidable graphical implement” limitations, that caused Sharma, Davidov, Niaza, Borley, and Morgan to be viewed as deficient. For at least these reasons, no prior art rejections have been asserted.
Response to Arguments
On pp. 10 and 11 of the Amendment/Response, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 USC 101. The applicant contends that the amended claims address a specific problem identified in the specification. (Amendment/Response, p. 10.) According to the applicant, the applicant’s specification explicitly identifies a specific technical problem and flaw in prior art software project management tools, referring to para. [0007] of the specification. (Amendment/Response, p. 10). The applicant contends that the specification also provides a specific technical solution to the problem in para. [0037]. (Amendment/Response, p. 10.) The applicant also contends that the newly added claim limitations establish a technical improvement. (Amendment/Response, p. 10.) The examiner disagrees with the contentions above. The problem highlighted by the applicant is not a technical problem. It is a problem with data. The alleged solution also is non-technical. Using more or better data has no relationship to technology. Rather, the applicant’s solution appears to be an improvement to the abstract idea of project management. For example, providing more efficient and timely software development cycles with less deviation from future planned data compared to common and conventional techniques used in current software project management, is improving an abstract idea. The fact that the project being management is software development does not make the project technological because the role of software in that context is merely field of use. Improvements to abstract ideas do not warrant a finding of eligibility. (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).) Similarly, improving software project management tools generally is an improvement to an abstract idea, as calendars, reports, and other non-technological elements are software project management tools.
The applicant also contends that the claims recite a specific, structured GUI that solves a prior art problem (aligning with Trading Techs). (Amendment/Response, p. 11.) The examiner disagrees with the contentions. From the discussion of Trading Techs in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), the critical aspect of the case concerns “A specific, structured graphical user interface that improves the accuracy of trader transactions by displaying bid and asked prices in a particular manner that prevents order entry at a changed price, Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 Fed. App'x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” While the claims establish a specific, structured graphical user interface analogous to that part of the blurb above from Trading Techs, the examiner finds nothing in the claims or specification that is analogous to the other part of the blurb above (about improving the accuracy of trader transactions by displaying bid and asked prices in a particular manner that prevents order entry at a changed price) from Trading Techs. Instead, the applicant’s claimed invention appears to merely establish showing more or different information on a structured graphical user interface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes the following:
Paredes, Julia, Craig Anslow, and Frank Maurer. "Information visualization for agile software development." 2014 second ieee working conference on software visualization. IEEE, 2014.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS Y. HO, whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern.
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, Jerry O'Connor, can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/THOMAS YIH HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights