DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This communication is a final action in response to communications filed on 1/12/2026. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), without providing a practical application integration and without providing significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are directed to a method (i.e., process) or a system (i.e., machine/apparatus), which are statutory categories of invention.
As per Step 2A-Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 1 is directed specifically to the abstract idea of managing/facilitating project payment by perform a plurality of operations comprising: retrieving project data from a project management system; storing the project data into a project data as a plurality of project records, wherein each of the project records contains a project identifier for a project, a team identifier for a team assigned to the project that is stored in the project management system, and a level of effort value indicative of an overall effort required for the team to complete the project; receive accounting data from an accounting system; storing the accounting data as cost center records, wherein each of the cost center records contains a cost center identifier stored in the accounting system, an account type identifier, and an expense amount; processing each one of the project records by (i) calculating a normalized level of effort value based on the level of effort value contained in the project record and (ii) determining one or more cost center identifiers associated with the project record by accessing a team identifier and a cost center identifier reference table stored in a reference data that contains the team identifiers from the project management system cross- referenced to the cost center identifiers from the accounting system; and processing each one of the cost center records by (i) identifying a cost center group comprising a group of the processed project records associated with the cost center identifier contained in the cost center record and (ii) allocating the expense amount contained in the cost center record across the group of the processed project records in the cost center group based on the normalized level of effort value for each of the processed project records in the cost center group, integrating the processed cost center records and the processed project records into an integrated table; and generating one or more reports based on the integrated table, all of which include mental processes (observing and evaluating project, cost and expense data to make a judgement/opinion on allocating a payment), and certain methods of organizing human activities, specifically fundamental economic practice (facilitating payments for a project based on effort), commercial and legal interactions (facilitating contractual payment for a project based on effort).Claim 8 is directed specifically to the abstract idea of managing/facilitating project payment by retrieving project data from a project management system; storing the project data into a project data as a plurality of project records, wherein each of the project records contains a project identifier for a project, a team identifier for a team assigned to the project that is stored in the project management system, and a level of effort value indicative of an overall effort required for the team to complete the project; processing each of the plurality of project records by: calculating a normalized level of effort value based on the level of effort value contained in the project record; and determining a cost center identifier associated with the project record by accessing a team identifier and a cost center identifier reference table stored in a reference data that contains the team identifiers from the project management system cross-referenced to cost center identifiers from an accounting system; and processing a plurality of cost center records each of which contains a cost center identifier of the cost center identifiers, an account type identifier, and an expense amount, wherein each one of the cost center records is processed by: identifying a cost center group comprising a group of the processed project records associated with the cost center identifier contained in the cost center record; and allocating the expense amount contained in the cost center record across the group of the processed project records in the cost center group based on the normalized level of effort value for each of the processed project records in the cost center group, integrating the processed cost center records and the processed project records into an integrated table; and generating one or more reports based on the integrated table, all of which include mental processes (observing and evaluating project, cost and expense data to make a judgement/opinion on allocating a payment), and certain methods of organizing human activities, specifically fundamental economic practice (facilitating payments for a project based on effort), commercial and legal interactions (facilitating contractual payment for a project based on effort). Claims 15 is directed specifically to the abstract idea of managing/facilitating project payment by retrieving project data from a project management system; storing the project data into a project data as a plurality of project records, wherein each of the project records contains a project identifier for a project, a team identifier for a team assigned to the project that is stored in the project management system, and a level of effort value indicative of an overall effort required for the team to complete the project; processing each of the plurality of project records by: calculating a normalized level of effort value based on the level of effort value contained in the project record; and determining a cost center identifier associated with the project record by accessing a team identifier and a cost center identifier reference table stored in a reference data that contains the team identifiers from the project management system cross-referenced to cost center identifiers from an accounting system; and processing a plurality of cost center records each of which contains a cost center identifier of the cost center identifiers, an account type identifier, and an expense amount, wherein each one of the cost center records is processed by: identifying a cost center group comprising the project records associated with the cost center identifier contained in the cost center record; allocating the expense amount contained in the cost center record across the project records in the cost center group by: summing the normalized level of effort values for the project records in the cost center group to obtain a total normalized level of effort value for the cost center group; determining a multiplier for each of the project records in the cost center group, wherein the multiplier for each project record comprises a percentage representing the normalized level of effort value for the project record in relation to the total normalized level of effort value for the cost center group; and applying the multiplier for each of the project records in the cost center group to the expense amount to determine an allocated expense amount for each of the project records in the cost center group integrating the processed cost center records and the processed project records into an integrated table; and generating one or more reports based on the integrated table, all of which include mental processes (observing and evaluating project, cost and expense data to make a judgement/opinion on allocating a payment), and certain methods of organizing human activities, specifically fundamental economic practice (facilitating payments for a project based on effort), commercial and legal interactions (facilitating contractual payment for a project based on effort). Claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 are further directed to the abstract idea of performing functions provided above for claims 1, 8 and 15 with further details/embellishments of the abstract idea. After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per Step 2A-Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as a computer, a computer system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform a plurality of operations, database, these limitations are not enough to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as a computer, a computer system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, database, cause the one or more processors to perform a plurality of operations, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered. Details are provided below.
Arguments on rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s amendments merely further amend the abstract idea except the databases which applies the instructions of the abstract idea in a particular technological environment; therefore, it would not provide a practical application or significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Arguments on rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103:
Rejections under this section have been withdrawn based on applicant’s amendments. Closest prior art to the invention includes: Raja (US 20050049903 A1) and Drew et al (US 8190468 B1), regarding “Statistical measures of the scores can be determined (206), including such measures as the standard deviation and the mean, taken over the time units of the assessment time period, and across the employees being compared.”. None of the prior art alone or in combination teaches the claimed invention wherein the novelty is in combination of all limitations.
Conclusion
Additional prior not relied upon includes:
Saitzyk (US 20140297358 A1), regarding “Understanding payment trends helps business to manage cash. Business can use cash flow modeling information as a factor in its bid estimates, negotiations and holding its project teams/owners accountable. Utilization of this front end system will allow business to track payment trends: by owner, by project manager, by project type. It will give business a payment alert for receipts that seem to be delayed outside the typical normal payment range. The system will also allow more transparency amongst the project teams to know when payment is actually received. Project teams are in better position to manage subcontractors and suppliers when they know have been paid or have not.”; and
Zhou (US 20230130163 A1), regarding “A project pulse display for a project overview system, project planning system, project management system, task management and enhanced understanding system, and methods of use are presented. The present system provides for improved project planning, project management, and unique tools, features, functionality, and components associated with project planning and project management. ”.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MEHMET YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)272-3257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624