DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 11/6/25 wherein:
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-20 are currently pending; and
Claims 2 and 11 are cancelled.
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 .
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, 3-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a computer readable storage medium, and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 13 and 18 recite a method and a computer readable storage medium, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category. Claim 13 is used as an exemplary claim.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The underlined limitations of
creating, by an application layer in a computer program system, work cards for work tasks acquired from application systems based on task information of the work tasks; wherein the application layer achieves a part of functions based on an instant messaging; wherein the work cards, as digital carriers, integrate information from different platforms and different application systems to provide unified management of the work tasks;
storing, by the application layer calling an engine layer in the computer program system, each work card into a system layer in the computer program system; wherein the system layer includes a plurality of application systems that are configured to be used by a user in work, a software development kit (SDK) interface is embedded in each application system, and information in the application system is acquired by the SDK interface;
acquiring, by the application layer, changing information of each work card;
updating, by the application layer calling the engine layer, information of each work card that has been stored in the system layer;
creating an associated work card based on the information of each work card and transferring the associated work card to an associated system or group by a work card transferring module in the application layer, and
proposing, by a knowledge engine module in the engine layer, a suggestion and a recommendation arrangement for the personal work arrangement of the user based on artificial intelligence (AI) capability in combination with the personal schedule of the user and his/her work cards
are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Specification describes the invention as managing work tasks, which is an interaction between people. Specification 1. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium including computer instructions configured to cause a computer to perform a method (claim 18). The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the acquiring and updating limitations may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The limitations reciting an application layer in a computer program system, application systems, wherein the application layer achieves a part of functions based on an instant messaging; digital carriers, the application layer calling an engine layer in the computer program system, a system layer in the computer program system; wherein the system layer includes a plurality of application systems that are configured to be used by a user in work, a software development kit (SDK) interface is embedded in each application system, and information in the application system is acquired by the SDK interface; the application layer, the application layer calling the engine layer, an associated system or group by a work card transferring module in the application layer, and a knowledge engine module in the engine layer, artificial intelligence (AI) capability (claim 13, and similar limitations in claims 1 and 18) provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the computers are invoked merely as a tool to perform existing processes (an application layer in a computer program system, application systems, wherein the application layer achieves a part of functions based on an instant messaging; digital carriers, the application layer calling an engine layer in the computer program system, a system layer in the computer program system; wherein the system layer includes a plurality of application systems that are configured to be used by a user in work, a software development kit (SDK) interface is embedded in each application system, and information in the application system is acquired by the SDK interface; the application layer, the application layer calling the engine layer, an associated system or group by a work card transferring module in the application layer, and a knowledge engine module in the engine layer, artificial intelligence (AI) capability). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): 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 using a computer to perform the acquiring, creating, acquiring and updating/storing steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the acquiring, updating, and storing limitations) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec, identifying storing information in memory as WURC, as recognized by Versata, and identifying electronic recordkeeping as WURC, as recognized by Alice). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 1 and 18 without including a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 3 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of receiving and storing each work card, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4, 14, 15, and 19 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of transferring the work card; and acquire information and display the information; and receive user edits and store the edited work card, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5 and 16 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of extracting knowledge, storing the knowledge, generate recommendation information, and return the recommendation information, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of acquire the recommendation information, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of acquire changing recommendation information, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of acquire transferring recommendation information, and transferring the work card, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of acquire editing recommendation information and editing the work card, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of performing collaborative editing on the work card, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the element of generate notification information, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 20 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the elements of transferring the work card and creating an associated work card and transferring the associated work card; and acquire information and display the information; receive user edits and store the edited work card, acquire transferring recommendation information, and transferring the work card, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-20 refer to work cards but the Specification does not provide a definition of the term “work cards,” nor does this appear to be a term of art. Examiner is unsure what is meant by work cards. Work cards could refer to a grouping of information, some sort of file structure, or something else entirely. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets this term to refer to a grouping of information. Although Applicant has amended the claims to indicated that “each work card is a carrier including information in different platforms and different application systems” this is merely functional claiming. In other words, the claim states only what the work cards do, not what the work cards are.
Notice
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorman (US 20130275398), in view of Gonzalez et al. (US 20190035503), in view of Teyer (US 20200285619), in view of Cella et al. (US 20210182996), and further in view of Dang et al. (US 20200226182).
Referring to claim 1:
Dorman discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a plurality of machine-readable instructions that form a computer program, the computer program comprising: [an application layer], configured to create work cards for work tasks acquired from application systems, and store each work card into a system [layer] by [calling an engine layer] {Dorman [0027][0036][0043] and Fig. 2; A workspace can generally refer to any grouping of a set of digital content in the collaboration platform. The grouping can be created [0027] and online collaboration platform deployed in an enterprise or other organizational setting 250 for organizing work items 215, 235, 255 and workspaces 205, 225, 245, as one example of a hosted cloud service and/or cloud storage [0036] where the portion of the claim in brackets is not explicitly disclosed by Dorman, but is included here for convenience, and is addressed below};
acquire changing information of each work card, and update each work card that has been stored in the system [layer] by [calling the engine layer] {Dorman [0027]; The collaboration platform or environment hosts workspaces with work items that one or more users can access (e.g., view, edit, update, revise, comment, download, preview, tag, or otherwise manipulate, etc.) [0027]};
wherein [the application layer] achieves a part of functions based on an instant messaging {Dorman [0033][0035]; instant messaging [0035] where the portion of the claim in brackets is not explicitly disclosed by Dorman, but is included here for convenience, and is addressed below}; wherein each work card, is a carrier including information in different platforms and different application systems, wherein the platforms comprise a development collaborative platform {Dorman [0010][0027]-[0029][0049]-[0055][0070] and Fig. 4D; a MAC package 450 is processed by the corresponding desktop or mobile sync client 452 or other agent/module of a cloud service 456 for the MAC package to be used and accessed via the cloud service 456 by different users, devices, and/or platforms/operating systems [0052] where the package 450 is a work card and The collaboration platform or environment hosts workspaces with work items that one or more users can access (e.g., view, edit, update, revise, comment, download, preview, tag, or otherwise manipulate, etc.) [0027] where the collaboration platform or environment is the development collaborative platform};
[the engine layer, configured to in response to being called by the application layer], send the created work cards and the changing information of each work card to the system [layer] for storage and update {Dorman [0027][0036] and Fig. 2; A workspace can generally refer to any grouping of a set of digital content in the collaboration platform. The grouping can be created [0027] and online collaboration platform deployed in an enterprise or other organizational setting 250 for organizing work items 215, 235, 255 and workspaces 205, 225, 245, as one example of a hosted cloud service and/or cloud storage [0036] where the portion of the claim in brackets is not explicitly disclosed by Dorman, but is included here for convenience, and is addressed below}; and
[the system layer], configured to store information of each work card {Dorman [0036] and Fig. 2; online collaboration platform deployed in an enterprise or other organizational setting 250 for organizing work items 215, 235, 255 and workspaces 205, 225, 245, as one example of a hosted cloud service and/or cloud storage [0036] where the portion of the claim in brackets is not explicitly disclosed by Dorman, but is included here for convenience, and is addressed below}; wherein the system layer includes a plurality of application systems that are configured to be used by a user in work, [a software development kit (SDK) interface is embedded in each application system, and information in the application system is acquired by the SDK interface] {Dorman [0023][0052][0090]; The client devices 102 can be any system and/or device, and/or any combination of devices/systems that is able to establish a connection [0023] where the portion of the claim in brackets is not explicitly disclosed by Dorman, but is included here for convenience, and is addressed below};
wherein, [the application layer] is further configured to perform creating an associated work card based on the information of each work card and transferring the associated work card to an associated system or group {Dorman [0049]-[0055][0069][0078]; the MAC package to be used and accessed via the cloud service 456 by different users, devices, and/or platforms/operating systems [0052] and where the package is downloaded by another, as described, thereby transferring the work card and where the portion of the claim in brackets is not explicitly disclosed by Dorman, but is included here for convenience, and is addressed below}.
Dorman discloses a cloud-based service for collaboration (abstract and [0027]). Dorman does not disclose wherein, the engine layer is further configured to propose a suggestion and a recommendation arrangement for the personal work arrangement of the user based on artificial intelligence (AI) capability in combination with the personal schedule of the user and his/her work cards; wherein, the engine layer is further configured to: extract knowledge from the information of each work card stored into the system layer, and store the extracted knowledge into the system layer.
However, Gonzalez discloses a similar system for task management and communication (abstract). Gonzalez discloses wherein, [the engine layer] is further configured to propose a suggestion and a recommendation arrangement for the personal work arrangement of the user based on artificial intelligence (AI) capability in combination with the personal schedule of the user and his/her work cards {Gonzalez [0090]-[0092]; the smart recommendation engine 1000 uses location services of users of the software application, electronic record data 1002 (e.g., electronic medical record data, such as data relating to patient demographics, diagnoses, medications, and surgical history), and database data 1004 accessible to the software application (e.g., task times, task types, time of day task completion, supply usage, and supply inventory) to generate task reminders without manual user intervention [0090] and For example, the output of the smart recommendation engine 1006 may be used to re-order supplies when inventory is low, recommend supplies based on tasks frequently associated therewith, and recommend user task assignment based on optimizations identified using the machine learning or other cognitive or artificial intelligence aspects of the smart recommendation engine 1006 [0092]}; wherein, [the engine layer] is further configured to: extract knowledge from the information of each work card stored into [the system layer], and store the extracted knowledge into [the system layer] {Gonzalez [0083]-[0088]; Individual variables (e.g., customer name, date of birth, record number (e.g., medical record number), location (e.g., hospital or medical facility room number), other personal information (e.g., medications, diagnoses, surgical history, etc.), or the like) may be pulled from electronic records, such as by using an API [0084] and The information stored within the table [0085]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Dorman to incorporate proposing suggestions and recommendations based on AI as taught by Gonzalez because this would provide a manner for automating aspects of the software application (Gonzalez [0092]), thus aiding the user by providing generating user-specific recommendations.
Dorman, as modified by Gonzalez, discloses a cloud-based service for collaboration (abstract and [0027]). Dorman, as modified by Gonzalez, does not disclose an application layer, a system layer, calling an engine layer, and the engine layer; wherein, the application layer is further configured to: call the engine layer in response to determining collaborative edition to be performed.
However, Teyer discloses a similar system for providing a data access layer (abstract). Teyer discloses an application layer, a system layer, calling an engine layer, and the engine layer {Teyer [0019][0021][0051][0053]; The user sends a query request to a CRM server via layers of application programming interfaces (APIs) such as a presentation layer, a business logic layer, and a data access layer [0019] and Storing and retrieving collections of data (e.g., list of users in a certain group). Relational databases or indexing engines can be used for this purpose [0051] and an engine for the data access layer [0053]}; wherein, the application layer is further configured to: call the engine layer in response to determining collaborative edition to be performed {Teyer [0019]-[0021] [0051][0053][0118]; For instance, an application in a CRM system may allow users to create, view, edit, modify, delete, get status update, and otherwise utilize data or information regarding an organization or customers or potential customers of an organization, sales made to customers, production monitoring information, marketing information, and other types of information that may be relevant to a business or sales development of the organization. . . The user sends a query request to a CRM server via layers of application programming interfaces (APIs) such as a presentation layer, a business logic layer, and a data access layer [0019] and an engine for the data access layer defines a list of object-oriented mapping application programming interfaces (ORM APIs) that allow users to persist and query data [0021]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Dorman and Gonzalez to incorporate layers and an engine layer as taught by Teyer because this would provide a manner for allowing simplified access to data (Teyer [0019]), thus aiding the user by providing desired information.
Dorman, as modified by Gonzalez and Teyer, discloses a cloud-based service for collaboration (abstract and [0027]). Dorman, as modified by Gonzalez and Teyer, does not disclose a software development kit (SDK) interface is embedded in each application system, and information in the application system is acquired by the SDK interface.
However, Cella discloses a similar system for a cloud-based management platform (abstract). Cella discloses a software development kit (SDK) interface is embedded in each application system, and information in the application system is acquired by the SDK interface {Cella [1141]; For each identified external resource, the digital twin configuration system 8102 may configure one or more data collection threads to access an API, SDK, port, webhook, search facility, database access facility, and/or other connection facility [1141]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Dorman, Gonzalez, and Teyer, to incorporate an SDK interface as taught by Cella because this would provide a manner for allowing access to data (Cella [1141]), thus aiding the user by providing desired information.
Dorman, as modified by Gonzalez and Teyer, discloses a cloud-based service for collaboration (abstract and [0027]). Dorman, as modified by Gonzalez and Teyer, does not disclose acquire a recommended target user generated by the engine layer, based on information of a work card to be edited and the knowledge stored into the system layer, for output to the user and sharing the work card to the recommended target user.
However, Dang discloses a similar system for document management and collaboration (abstract). Dang discloses acquire a recommended target user generated by the engine layer, based on information of a work card to be edited and the knowledge stored into the system layer, for output to the user and sharing the work card to the recommended target user {Dang [0015][0018]; the document management and collaboration system may also suggest a reviewer for a document or a set of documents, such as a document collection, folder or directory. The reviewer may be a member of an organization to which the document belongs. For example, the suggested reviewer may be identified as an authority or an expert on a particular topic. As described herein, the reviewer may be identified based at least in part on attributes of the reviewer and/or attributes of the document. The attributes of the reviewer my include one or more tags applied by the reviewer to documents in the document management and collaboration system or the content of documents viewed, searched for or uploaded by the reviewer, among others [0018]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Dorman, Gonzalez, Teyer, and Cella to incorporate acquiring a recommended target user as taught by Dang because this would provide a manner for identifying a recommended user who is an expert on a particular topic (Dang [0018]), thus aiding the user by providing the most appropriate reviewer.
Referring to claim 3:
Dorman, as modified by Gonzalez, Teyer, Cella, and Dang discloses wherein, the application layer is further configured to receive the work cards sent by application systems {Dorman [0027][0036][0086] and Fig. 2; A workspace can generally refer to any grouping of a set of digital content in the collaboration platform. The grouping can be created [0027] and online collaboration platform deployed in an enterprise or other organizational setting 250 for organizing work items 215, 235, 255 and workspaces 205, 225, 245, as one example of a hosted cloud service and/or cloud storage [0036]}.
Referring to claim 4:
Dorman, as modified by Gonzalez, Teyer, Cella, and Dang discloses the application layer is further configured to perform transferring the work card to an associated application system or group by calling the engine layer in response to a user operation {Dorman [0028][0041][0043][0049]-[0055][0069][0070] [0078]; adding, deleting, or modifying collaborators in the work space [0041] and the MAC package to be used and accessed via the cloud service 456 by different users, devices, and/or platforms/operating systems [0052] and where the package is downloaded by another, as described, thereby transferring the work card};
the application layer is configured to acquire information of a work card associated with a user from the system [layer] and display the information of the work card associated with the user on a personal board of the user; and receive a user edition to the displayed work card and store the edited work card into the system layer by calling the engine layer {Dorman [0027][0041]-[0043][0046]; an edit, a change, a modification, a new file, a conflicting version, an upload of an edited or modified file [0042]}.
Referring to claim 5:
Dorman, as modified by Gonzalez, Teyer, Cella, and Dang discloses the engine layer is further configured to . . . generate recommendation information based on information provided by the application layer and the knowledge stored into the system layer, and return the recommendation information to the application layer {Gonzalez [0090]-[0092]; the smart recommendation engine 1000 uses location services of users of the software application, electronic record data 1002 (e.g., electronic medical record data, such as data relating to patient demographics, diagnoses, medications, and surgical history), and database data 1004 accessible to the software application (e.g., task times, task types, time of day task completion, supply usage, and supply inventory) to generate task reminders without manual user intervention [0090] and For example, the output of the smart recommendation engine 1006 may be used to re-order supplies when inventory is low, recommend supplies based on tasks frequently associated therewith, and recommend user task assignment based on optimizations identified using the machine learning or other cognitive or artificial intelligence aspects of the smart recommendation engine 1006 [0092]}; and
an engine layer application layer, a system layer, application layer, and in response to being called by any module in the application layer . . .
{Teyer [0019][0021][0051]; The user sends a query request to a CRM server via layers of application programming interfaces (APIs) such as a presentation layer, a business logic layer, and a data access layer [0019] and Storing and retrieving collections of data (e.g., list of users in a certain group). Relational databases or indexing engines can be used for this purpose [0051] and an engine for the data access layer [0053]}.
Referring to claim 6:
Dorman, as modified by Gonzalez, Teyer, Cella, and Dang, discloses wherein, the application layer is further configured to: call the engine layer in response to acquiring the task information of the work tasks {Teyer [0019][0021] [0051]; The user sends a query request to a CRM server via layers of application programming interfaces (APIs) such as a presentation layer, a business logic layer, and a data access layer [0019] and Storing and retrieving collections of data (e.g., list of users in a certain group). Relational databases or indexing engines can be used for this purpose [0051] and an engine for the data access layer [0053]}.
Dorman, as modified by Gonzalez, Teyer, Cella, and Dang, discloses acquire the recommendation information generated by the engine layer based on the task information, for output to the user and creating the work card based on the recommendation information {Gonzalez [0090]-[0092]; the smart recommendation engine 1000 uses location services of users of the software application, electronic record data 1002 (e.g., electronic medical record data, such as data relating to patient demographics, diagnoses, medications, and surgical history), and database data 1004 accessible to the software application (e.g., task times, task types, time of day task completion, supply usage, and supply inventory) to generate task reminders without manual user intervention [0090] and For example, the output of the smart recommendation engine 1006 may be used to re-order supplies when inventory is low, recommend supplies based on tasks frequently associated therewith, and recommend user task assignment based on optimizations identified using the machine learning or other cognitive or artificial intelligence aspects of the smart recommendation engine 1006 [0092]}.
Referring to claim 7:
Dorman, as modified by Gonzalez, Teyer, Cella, and Dang discloses wherein, the application layer is further configured to: call the engine layer in response to determining a work card to be changed {Teyer [0019][0021][0051]; The user sends a query request to a CRM server via layers of application programming interfaces (APIs) such as a presentation layer, a business logic layer, and a data access layer [0019] and Storing and retrieving collections of data (e.g., list of users in a certain group). Relational databases or indexing engines can be used for this purpose [0051] and an engine for the data access layer [0053]};
acquire changing recommendation information of the work card generated by the engine layer, based on information of the work card to be changed and the knowledge stored into the system layer, for output to the user and changing the work card based on the changing recommendation information {Dorman 5:13-54 and 6:38-67; For example, a rule can indicate that upon receipt of a particular work item, the work item should be forwarded to another user [5:13-30] where forwarding the work card is a change in recommended information}.
Referring to claim 8:
Dorman, as modified by Gonzalez, Teyer, Cella, and Dang discloses wherein, the application layer is further configured to: call the engine layer in response to determining a work card to be transferred {Teyer [0019][0021][0051]; The user sends a query request to a CRM server via layers of application programming interfaces (APIs) such as a presentation layer, a business logic layer, and a data access layer [0019] and Storing and retrieving collections of data (e.g., list of users in a certain group). Relational databases or indexing engines can be used for this purpose [0051] and an engine for the data access layer [0053]};
acquire transferring recommendation information of the work card generated by the engine layer, based on information of the work card to be transferred and the knowledge stored into the system layer, for output to the user and transferring the work card to be transferred based on the transferring recommendation information {Dorman 5:13-54 and 6:38-67; For example, a rule can indicate that upon receipt of a particular work item, the work item should be forwarded to another user [5:13-30] where forwarding the work item is interpreted as transferring the work card}.
Referring to claim 10:
Dorman, as modified by Gonzalez, Teyer, Cella, and Dang discloses wherein, the application layer is further configured to share the work card to a target user selected by the user . . . to perform collaborative edition on the work card {Dorman [0027]-[0029]; the collaboration platform allows multiple users or collaborators to access or collaborate efforts on work items such each user can see, remotely, edits, revisions, comments, or annotations being made to specific work items through their own user devices [0029]};
call the engine layer {Teyer [0019][0021][0051]; The user sends a query request to a CRM server via layers of application programming interfaces (APIs) such as a presentation layer, a business logic layer, and a data access layer [0019] and Storing and retrieving collections of data (e.g., list of users in a certain group). Relational databases or indexing engines can be used for this purpose [0051] and an engine for the data access layer [0053]}.
Referring to claim 12:
Dorman, as modified by Gonzalez, Teyer, Cella, and Dang discloses configured to generate notification information for output to the user through the application layer, in response to the work card being created, changed, transferred and edited {Dorman [0041]-[0043][0086]; In each work space A, B . . . N, when an action is performed on a work item by a given user or any other activity is detected in the work space, other users in the same work space may be notified (e.g., in real time or in near real time, or not in real time). Activities which trigger real time notifications can include, by way of example but not limitation, adding, deleting, or modifying collaborators in the work space, uploading, downloading, adding, deleting a work item in the work space, creating a discussion topic in the work space [0041]};
the engine layer {Teyer [0019][0021][0051]; The user sends a query request to a CRM server via layers of application programming interfaces (APIs) such as a presentation layer, a business logic layer, and a data access layer [0019] and Storing and retrieving collections of data (e.g., list of users in a certain group). Relational databases or indexing engines can be used for this purpose [0051]}; and the engine layer further comprises a work card transferring engine {Teyer [0053][0060]; an engine for the data access layer [0053]}.
Referring to claim 13:
Claim 13 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1.
Referring to claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 3.
Referring to claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected on a similar basis to claims 4 and 10.
Referring to claim 16:
Dorman, as modified by Gonzalez, Teyer, Cella, and Dang discloses in response to determining a work card to be created, generating, by the engine layer, work card recommendation information for creating a work card based on information of the work card to be created and the knowledge stored into the system layer for output to the user, or in response to determining a work card to be changed, generating, by the engine layer, change recommendation information for changing a work card based on information of the work card to be changed and the knowledge stored into the system layer for output to the user, or in response to determining a work cared to be transferred, generating, by the engine layer, transferring recommendation information for transferring a work card based on information of the work card to be transferred and the knowledge stored into the system layer for output to the user, or in response to determining a work card to be edited in a personal board, generating, by the engine layer, editing recommendation information for editing a work card in the personal board based on information of the work card to be edited and the knowledge stored into the system layer for output to the user {Dang [0015][0018]; the document management and collaboration system may also suggest a reviewer for a document or a set of documents, such as a document collection, folder or directory. The reviewer may be a member of an organization to which the document belongs. For example, the suggested reviewer may be identified as an authority or an expert on a particular topic. As described herein, the reviewer may be identified based at least in part on attributes of the reviewer and/or attributes of the document. The attributes of the reviewer my include one or more tags applied by the reviewer to documents in the document management and collaboration system or the content of documents viewed, searched for or uploaded by the reviewer, among others [0018]};
a system layer {Teyer [0019][0021][0051]; The user sends a query request to a CRM server via layers of application programming interfaces (APIs) such as a presentation layer, a business logic layer, and a data access layer [0019] and Storing and retrieving collections of data (e.g., list of users in a certain group). Relational databases or indexing engines can be used for this purpose [0051] and an engine for the data access layer [0053]}.
Referring to claim 17:
Claim 17 is similar to claim 13 and is rejected on a similar basis, with the following additions:
Dorman discloses an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor {Dorman [0062][0082]-[0086]; The machine may be a server computer, a client computer, a personal computer (PC) [0084]};
wherein, the memory is stored with instructions executable by the at least one processor, the instructions are performed by the at least one processor, the at least one processor is caused to perform the method for managing work tasks according to claim 13 {Dorman [0062][0082]-[0086]; The computer programs typically comprise one or more instructions set at various times in various memory and storage devices in a computer, and that, when read and executed by one or more processing units or processors in a computer, cause the computer to perform operations [0086]}.
Referring to claim 18:
Claim 18 is similar to claim 13 and is rejected on a similar basis, with the following additions:
Dorman discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium stored with computer instructions, wherein, the computer instructions are configured to cause a computer to perform a method for managing work tasks {Dorman [0062][0082]-[0086]; The computer programs typically comprise one or more instructions set at various times in various memory and storage devices in a computer, and that, when read and executed by one or more processing units or processors in a computer, cause the computer to perform operations [0086]}.
Referring to claim 19:
Claim 19 is similar to claim 15 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Referring to claim 20:
Claim 20 is similar to claim 16 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorman (US 20130275398), in view of Gonzalez et al. (US 20190035503), in view of Teyer (US 20200285619), in view of Cella et al. (US 20210182996), in view of Dang et al. (US 20200226182), and further in view of Moore (US 7711694).
Referring to claim 9:
Dorman, as modified by Gonzalez, Teyer, Cella, and Dang discloses wherein, the application layer is further configured to: call the engine layer in response to the user editing a work card {Teyer [0019][0021][0051]; The user sends a query request to a CRM server via layers of application programming interfaces (APIs) such as a presentation layer, a business logic layer, and a data access layer [0019] and Storing and retrieving collections of data (e.g., list of users in a certain group). Relational databases or indexing engines can be used for this purpose [0051] and an engine for the data access layer [0053]}.
Dorman, as modified by Gonzalez, Teyer, Cella, and Dang discloses a cloud-based service for collaboration (abstract and [0027]). Dorman, as modified by Gonzalez, Teyer, Cella, and Dang does not disclose acquire editing recommendation information of the work card generated by the engine layer, based on information of a work card to be edited and the knowledge stored into the system layer, for output to the user and editing the work card to be transferred based on the editing recommendation information.
However, Moore discloses a similar system for user-customizable enterprise workflow management. Moore discloses acquire editing recommendation information of the work card generated by the engine layer, based on information of a work card to be edited and the knowledge stored into the system layer, for output to the user and editing the work card to be transferred based on the editing recommendation information {Moore 5:31-65; A guided procedure 16 is defined using a process flow model including phases 17, steps 19 and flow blocks 21) The guided procedure also is defined by a process context and a team formed by all users associated with a specific process. Actions may be linked between the process flow model and a data context. The data context may include semantic information as well as input (resources) and output (deliverables) that will be needed or created [5:55-65]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Dorman, Gonzalez, Teyer, Cella, and Dang to incorporate editing recommendation information as taught by Moore because this would provide a manner for guiding the user (Moore 5:31-65), thus aiding the user by providing desired information.
Response to Arguments
Disposition of the Claims
Examiner has no comment.
Claim Amendments
Examiner thanks Applicant for the summary of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Interpretation
In light of Applicant’s amendments, the claims are no longer interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101, software per se
Withdrawn, in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101, Alice
Step 2A – The claims are Directed to an Abstract Idea
Preliminarily, Examiner notes that the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance has now been incorporated into the MPEP (see MPEP 2106).
Applicant argues that the claimed method is performed by a computer and therefore, does not fall into the method for organizing human activity grouping (or any other abstract idea grouping). Remarks 17. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The courts have determined that “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223 (2014). “Stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it with a computer’ simply combines” the steps of “applying” the abstract idea and limiting it to a particular technological environment, neither of which impart patent eligibility. Id. In this case, Applicant merely recites the use of computer technology (as identified in the 101 rejection, above) to manage work tasks, which is an abstract idea.
Applicant then argues that the claims recite a practical application and recites several claim limitations on pages 17-18. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claim limitations provide a practical application. As is stated above, the computer elements in the claim are invoked merely as a tool to perform existing processes. Applicant has not provided any evidence that the claims provide a practical application.
Step 2B-The claims do Not include Significantly More than the Abstract Idea
Applicant argues that the claims “recite a solution based in technology.” Remarks 19. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims must recite “a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03. Merely reciting all of the claim limitations does not identify a particular solution to a problem. Further, as stated in MPEP 2106.05(a), during examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Applicant has not identified an improvement in technology, but merely alleges an improvement in “automation and intelligence of the work task processing flow” and an improvement to “work efficiency” without providing a particular solution or evidence of an improvement to technology. However, there is no evidence of a specific improvement in automation and intelligence of the work task processing flow. Further, an improvement to “work efficiency” is an improvement to a business process, not to technology. Further, Applicant r