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 .
Claims Amended
The amendment of 02/04/26 has been entered. Claims pending: 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15, 17 and 19.
The following claims are amended:
(1) Independent claims: 1, 9, and 17.
(2) Dependent claims: 10-13
Claims canceled: 6, 8, 14, 16, 18 and 20.
Claim Status
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15, 17 and 19 are pending. They comprising of 3 groups:
1) Apparatus1: 1-5, 2-5, and 7, and
2) Method1: 9-13, and 15, and
3) CRM1: 17 and 19.
As of 02/04/26, independent claim 1 is as followed:
1. (Currently amended) An apparatus comprising:
[I] a memory configured to store program instructions; and
[II] a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the program instructions, wherein, in response to the execution of the program instructions, the processor is configured to:
[1] control display, via a uniform resource location (URL), of a user interface comprising a web page that includes a first digital workspace with a first set of dedicated content areas, wherein a web server hosts the first digital workspace;
[2] connect the web server to a plurality of user devices via a computer network, wherein the plurality of user devices posts first digital content to the first digital workspace via respective web browsers on the plurality of user devices;
[3] detect the first digital content that is posted on the first set of dedicated content areas of the first digital workspace from the[[a]] plurality of user devices, wherein the detection of the first digital content comprises detection of a first plurality of digital notes posted, by the plurality of user devices, to a digital note board within the first digital workspace;
[4] extract a subset of dedicated content areas from the first set of dedicated content areas;
[5] remove the first digital workspace after a specific amount of time has elapsed;
[6] replace the removed first digital workspace with a second digital workspace of the user interface;
[7] control the user interface to display the second digital workspace at the web page, in sequence with the first digital workspace;
[8] populate the user interface with a second set of dedicated content areas based on the detection of the first digital content in the first set of dedicated content areas, wherein
the second digital workspace includes the second set of dedicated content areas and the extracted subset of dedicated content areas.,
the second set of dedicated content areas includes a second plurality of digital notes, and
the second plurality of digital notes is rearranged on the digital note board based on the first diqital content posted on the first set of dedicated content areas;
[9] receive, from the plurality of user devices, second digital content that is placed on the second set of dedicated content areas of the second digital workspace;
[10] receive, from the plurality of user devices, votes on priorities among the first digital content and the second digital content;
[11] generate an action plan based on the first digital content, the second digital content, and the received votes; and
[12] control the user interface to display the action plan.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[12] are added to the beginning of each element.
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 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
(1) law of nature,
(2) natural phenomenon, and
(3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(i) a method of organizing human activities,
(2i) an idea of itself, or
(3i) a mathematical relationship or formula.
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims: 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15, 17 and 19.
Claim categories:
Apparatus: 1-5 and 7, and
Method: 9-13 and 15, and
Product: 17 and 19.
Analysis:
Method: claims 9-13 and 15 are directed to a method for creating a workflow with some rules for implement a business strategy using a user interface, comprising the steps of [1] display a user interface comprising a page of having a 1st workspace with a 1st content area for a 1st set of topics, [2] connect the server to device, [3] detect receive notes/comments about the 1st content and add them to the 1st content, [4] extract a subset of the first content area, i.e. “Data needs”, [5] remove the first workspace and [6] replace it with a 2nd workspace, [7] control the user interface to display the second digital workspace, [8] populate the user interface with a second set of dedicated content areas, [9] receive second digital content (notes/comments) about the 2nd content and add them to the 2nd content, [10] receive votes on priorities among the 1st and 2nd set of topics, [11] generate an action plan based on the additional notes/comments added to the 2nd workspace and the votes among the 1st and 2nd set of topics, and [12] control the user interface to display the action plan. (Step 1:Yes).
Apparatus: claims 1-5 and 7 are directed to a system comprising a processor, data storage and computer programs for carrying out a method for creating a workflow with some rules for implement a business strategy using a user interface, comprising the steps cited above. (Step 1:Yes).
Product: claims 17 and 19 are directed to a computer readable hardware storage medium system for carrying out a method for creating a workflow with some rules for implement a business strategy using a user interface, comprising the steps cited above. (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites the abstract idea of creating a workflow with some rules for implement a business strategy using a user interface, comprising the steps of displaying a user interface comprising a page of having a 1st workspace with a 1st content area for a 1st set of topics, connect the web server to a plurality of user deives, detect receive notes/comments about the 1st content and add them to the 1st content, extract a subset of the first content area, i.e. “Data needs”, remove the first workspace and replace it with a 2nd workspace, control the user interface to display the second digital workspace, populate the user interface with a second set of dedicated content areas, receive second digital content (notes/comments) about the 2nd content and add them to the 2nd content, receive votes on priorities among the 1st and 2nd set of topics, generate an action plan based on the additional notes/comments added to the 2nd workspace and the votes among the 1st and 2nd set of topics, and display the action plan.
These recited limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to creating a workflow with some rules for implement a business strategy using a user interface. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
(2A) The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because in particular, the claims recites steps for creating a workflow with some rules for implement a business strategy using a user interface.
The user device in both steps is recited a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic device performing generic computer function of creating a workflow with some rules for implement a business strategy using a user interface, comprising the steps of displaying a user interface comprising a page of having a 1st workspace with a 1st content area for a 1st set of topics, connect the web server to a plurality of user deives, detect receive notes/comments about the 1st content and add them to the 1st content, extract a subset of the first content area, i.e. “Data needs”, remove the first workspace and replace it with a 2nd workspace, control the user interface to display the second digital workspace, populate the user interface with a second set of dedicated content areas, receive second digital content (notes/comments) about the 2nd content and add them to the 2nd content, receive votes on priorities among the 1st and 2nd set of topics, generate an action plan based on the additional notes/comments added to the 2nd workspace and the votes among the 1st and 2nd set of topics, and display the action plan, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the steps of “displaying,” “receiving information (note cards),” and “generating a document” (information) are considered as insignificant activities.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
(2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional element of displaying a user interface comprising a page of having a 1st workspace with a 1st content area for a 1st set of topics, connect the web server to a plurality of user deives, detect receive notes/comments about the 1st content and add them to the 1st content, extract a subset of the first content area, i.e. “Data needs”, remove the first workspace and replace it with a 2nd workspace, control the user interface to display the second digital workspace, populate the user interface with a second set of dedicated content areas, receive second digital content (notes/comments) about the 2nd content and add them to the 2nd content, receive votes on priorities among the 1st and 2nd set of topics, generate an action plan based on the additional notes/comments added to the 2nd workspace and the votes among the 1st and 2nd set of topics, and display the action plan, amounts to no more than mere instructions for creating a workflow with some rules for implement a business strategy using a user interface between several participants using a generic computer component in Step 2A, prong 2. The additional of URL, web page, workspace, web browsers, user interface, etc. are well known and conventional computing elements. Re-evaluating here in step 2B, this is also determined to well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-5 (part of 1 above), which deal with content populating features, i.e. populating various GUI areas, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in claims 1. In addition, they recite the types of population features without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 2-3 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dependent claim 7 (part of 1 above), which deal with action to be performed, this claim recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in claims 1. In addition, they recite the types of actions to be performed. Even in combination, these additional elements do not (2B) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Therefore, claims 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15, 17 and 19 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/26 have been fully considered, and the results are as followed:
1) 101 Rejection:
(1) Applicant’s comment on pages 11-12 are noted but not persuasive. The claims are method for creating a workflow with some rules for implement a business strategy using a user interface. The tying of the claims to computer technology is marginal, using conventional computing elements, GUI, etc., and devices.
Applicant’s comment that the current claim 1 is similar to Example 37 of 2019 PEG is not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
514
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Example 37 deals with a method for rearranging icons on a GUI, wherein the method moves the most used icons to a position on the GUI, specifically, closest to the “Start” icon of the computer system to improve the screen operation, based on a determined amount of use by tracking the number of times each icons are used over a period of time.
Applicant’s comments on pages 14-17, cited below, are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image2.png
664
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
First of all, the cited features of “AI strategy that can be used to build a cloud data and AI platform of current state” are not in the claim. As for the capture votes on the posted content based on priorities among the 1st content and the 2nd content, it’s not clear what rules are being used to show how priorities are being used? Or priority of what? Furthermore, the results of steps [1]-[8] are 1st and 2nd digital workspace being displayed on the interface, so it’s not clear the relationship of the 1st and 2nd digital contents with the 1st and 2nd digital workspaces.
Applicant’s comment on 1st paragraph of page 15, cited below, is not persuasive. Since there no clear business objective or a standard template for carrying out a business plan or project in the independent claim, it’s not clear the advantage of “speeding up the process through the centralized and always available collaborative workspace” would achieve it does not result in an acceptable standard procedure.
PNG
media_image3.png
218
660
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s comment on 2nd paragraph of page 15 are not persuasive for the same reasons above. It does not seem that the current claims improve the “screen operation” as in Example 37 of the 2019 PEG.
(2) 103 Rejection:
None.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6:30-4:30 PM (ET).
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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689