DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 4/16/26 wherein:
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, and 12-20 are currently pending; and
Claims 2, 9, 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, 3-8, 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;
extracting knowledge from the information of each work card stored in the system layer and storing the extracted knowledge into the system layer, by the engine layer;
in response to determining a work card to be collaboratively edited, generating, by the engine layer, a recommended target user for collaborative editing based on information of the work card to be collaboratively edited and the knowledge stored into the system layer for output to the user;
wherein each work card is configured to record a whole process flow and a working link state of a work task corresponding to the work card, and is further configured to be transferred in a dialogue between users and in a session group;
wherein the method further comprises:
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;
saving, by the engine layer, a process template acquired through learning each historical work process; and
recommending, by the engine layer, process information to the user based on the process template, in response to recognizing that a current work task and a task corresponding to the process template belong to a same task
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 (claims 1 and 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 storing, 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 claimed 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 3-8, 10, 12, 14-17, 19, and 20 merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 1, 13, and 18 without including a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 3-8, 10, 12, 14-17, 19, and 20 are also non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Subject Matter Distinguished from Prior Art
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to claims 1, 3-8, 10, and 12-20.
The most closely applicable prior art of record is Dorman (US 20130275398). Dorman discloses a cloud-based service for collaboration (abstract and [0027]).
Gonzalez et al. (US 20190035503) is also closely applicable prior art of record. Gonzalez discloses a system for task management and communication (abstract).
Teyer (US 20200285619) is also closely applicable prior art of record. Teyer discloses a system for providing a data access layer (abstract).
Cella et al. (US 20210182996) is also closely applicable prior art of record. Cella discloses a system for a cloud-based management platform (abstract).
Dang et al. (US 20200226182) is also closely applicable prior art of record. Dang discloses a system for document management and collaboration (abstract).
Referring to claim 13: The prior art of record neither anticipates not fairly and reasonable teach a computer-implemented method for managing work tasks, comprising:
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;
extracting knowledge from the information of each work card stored in the system layer and storing the extracted knowledge into the system layer, by the engine layer;
in response to determining a work card to be collaboratively edited, generating, by the engine layer, a recommended target user for collaborative editing based on information of the work card to be collaboratively edited and the knowledge stored into the system layer for output to the user;
wherein each work card is configured to record a whole process flow and a working link state of a work task corresponding to the work card, and is further configured to be transferred in a dialogue between users and in a session group;
wherein the method further comprises:
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;
saving, by the engine layer, a process template acquired through learning each historical work process; and
recommending, by the engine layer, process information to the user based on the process template, in response to recognizing that a current work task and a task corresponding to the process template belong to a same task
Claims 1 and 18 are considered to be distinguishable from prior art for similar reasons. Examiner notes that the underlined limitations above, in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claims are not found in the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Foreign Priority
Applicant’s claim for foreign priority is acknowledged.
Disposition of the Claims
Examiner has no comment.
Claim Amendments
Examiner thanks Applicant for the summary of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101, Alice
Preliminarily, Examiner notes that the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance has now been incorporated into the MPEP (see MPEP 2106).
I. The Claims are Not Directed to a Specific Technological Solution to a Particular Technological Problem
1. The Invention Does Not Identify a Particular Technological Problem in the Specification
Applicant argues that the work tasks and information are “scattered across” systems, creating “isolated data” and a “disconnected collaboration context.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. None of these terms/reasons have support in the Specification. Applicant then argues that this hinders “unified management” and “efficient cross-system workflow management.” Examiner respectfully disagrees that these provide a technological problem. Managing data is a business problem, not a technical problem. Applicant further argues that existing solutions fail to “break boundaries between systems.” Examiner respectfully disagrees that this is a specific technological problem. Regardless, it is the solution or the improvement which must be evaluated.
2. The Invention Does Not Set Forth a Specific Technological Solution
Applicant recites several of the claim limitations and argues that these limitations form “a complete, closed-loop, intelligent cross-platform workflow management system” which is “aimed at solving a clear problem of technological integration and automation.” Remarks 14-16. 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 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 that the elements solve “a clear problem of technological integration and automation” without providing a particular solution or evidence of an improvement to technology.
II. The Claims Do Not Integrate the Abstract Concept into a Practical Application
Applicant references DDR Holdings, arguing claims are eligible when the solution they define is “necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the real of computer networks.” Remarks 16. Examiner respectfully disagrees. DDR Holdings was a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The instant claims are not directed to similar subject matter. Applicant’s alleged problem of “data silos” and “process fragmentation” is not one that is identified in the Specification. Nor is there any further evidence that this is the problem being solved. Further, the use of technology does not indicate that the solution is rooted in technology.
III. There is No Need for a Berkheimer analysis of the claims as a whole
The Office does not rely on the entirety of the claims being well-understood, routine, or conventional. The few claim limitations which are considered well-understood, routine, or conventional are clearly identified in the rejection and support is provided for those limitations (see above).
IV. The Claims Do Not Recite Significantly More than the Abstract Idea
1. Applicant Argues the Claims provide a Non-Routine, Non-Conventional Combination of Technological Elements
While Applicant argues that claim 1, like BASCOM, provides an inventive concept in a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” Applicant does not identify how the claims do this. Moreover, the claims in BASCOM were directed to an inventive distribution of functionality within a network to filter internet content, which overcame a specific technological problem. There is no similar non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces provided here.
2. The Applicant Misunderstands the Berkheimer Memo
Under the Berkheimer Memo and MPEP 2106.05(d), evidence need only be supplied by the Office when using the well-understood, routine, and conventional reasoning. Further MPEP 2106.05(d) provides several cases which establish elements the courts have recognized, or those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, as elements that describe well‐understood, routine activities. As is stated above, the rejection provides such support when using the well-understood, routine, and conventional reasoning (see rejection, supra).
3. Improvement to Technology itself requires Technical Details
Applicant argues that the claims include technical improvements in how data moves and maintains state between systems, how the system makes decisions automatically, and how the system accesses and utilizes external data. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Improvements to technology itself requires 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 that the elements provide improvements without providing a particular solution or evidence of an improvement to technology.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112
Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to clarify the definition of the term “work cards” by “adding technical features.” Remarks 20. As is explained above, this is merely functional claiming. In other words, the claim states only what the work cards do, not what the work cards are. Applicant even seems to agree with this analysis, stating, “the function and role of the ‘work cards’ within the system are clearly described, thereby clarifying the definition of the term.”
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
The rejection is withdrawn, in light of Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights