The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on 09/23/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14-17 and 19-20 have been examined.
Response to Amendment
In the instant amendment, claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14-17 and 19-20 have been amended.
The 35 USC §101 rejection over claims is 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14-17 and 19-20 maintained in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The 35 USC §112 rejection over claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14-17 and 19-20 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
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 19, the claims are within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a method claims, and medium claim under Step 1.
However, per claims 1, 10 and 19, the limitations “… applying a set of for the selected data source to transform the data from the selected data source to a standard format”, “analyzing the transformed status data …. ” and “determining whether the cycles …”, as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “… applying a set of for the selected data source to transform the data from the selected data source to a standard format”, “analyzing the transformed status data …. ” and “determining whether the cycles …” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2 Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “one or more processors …”, “computing device”, “storing mappings of cycles …”, “storing mappings of milestones …”, “storing mappings of computational jobs …” “obtaining status data …”, “storing the transformed data …”, “generating a user interface ..” and “causing the user interface to be displayed …”. “one or more processors”, and “computing device” are 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, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. The addition element “storing mappings of cycles …”, “storing mappings of milestones …”, “storing mappings of computational jobs …” “obtaining status data …”, “storing the transformed data …”, “generating a user interface ..” and “causing the user interface to be displayed …” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “obtaining”. “storing”, “generating”, “causing the user interface to be displayed” and are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, 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 as discussed above, which does not amount to significantly more, thus, not an inventive concept, and the courts have identified “obtaining status data …”, “storing the transformed data …”, “generating a user interface ..” and “causing the user interface to be displayed …” is well-understood, routine and conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept.. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the limitation “wherein the user interface includes an indication that one of the cycles is executing on time or that one of the cycles is delayed in executing” is an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the limitation “wherein the user interface includes an indication that a current milestone is being executed” is an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the limitation “wherein the analyzing …determines …” is an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the limitation “determining” is an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Under prong 2, the “wherein the obtaining status data regarding the jobs, comprises making an Application Program Interface (API) call to obtain the status data from a selected data sources” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Under prong 2, the “wherein the status data regarding the jobs is obtained from a job scheduling tool that schedules the jobs for execution.” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 20, Under prong 2, the “wherein the user interface also displays status information regarding the selected” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan Dao whose telephone number is (571) 270 3387. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 09am to 05pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272 4215. 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TUAN C DAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198