DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
The following is a Non-Final Rejection. In response to Examiner's communication on 09/24/2025, Applicant on 12/23/2025, amended independent claims 1,14,18 and dependent claims 2,6,7,9,15,19, cancelled claims 3-5, and added new claims 21-23. Claims 1-2, 6-23 are now pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendments are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous action.
Applicants’ amendments render moot the 35 USC 103 and 35 USC 102 rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections have been updated to address the amendments and maintained below.
Applicant’s amendments additionally necessitate new grounds of rejection to be brought to Claims 17, 20 under 35 USC 112(d). This rejection is outlined below.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The crux of Applicant’s arguments lie with the assertion that what is claimed is an improvement in technology, with said technological improvements being unable to be performed in the human mind. However, note that per MPEP 2106.05(a), "an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology." What is claimed is not a novel language processing algorithm, or an apparatus that represents an improving by way of the underlying hardware, but rather the generic application of computing components to perform project management, which cannot be said to be integrated into a practical application or amount to significantly more. While Examiner agrees that this may represent a better means of effectuating project management, it is not the underlying technology that is being improved, and thus Applicant’s arguments that the claimed invention represents an improvement in technology are not found to be persuasive.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that Dotan-Cohen does not teach “generate a data structure representing a lifecycle of at least one goal of a given project”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims are examined according to their broadest reasonable interpretation. With the generality of a broad term such as “data structure”, Examiner notes that any particular means of organizing salient data discloses this limitation. See [0004] of Dotan-Cohen, “In some aspects, a computing system may automatically identify and maintain projects by grouping entities, such as emails, files, contacts, meetings, and appointments, based on similarities between content of those entities, metadata of those entities, and/or detected user interactions, or events, with respect to those entities”. We consider the computer system’s grouping of salient data to encompass an implicit data structure, namely that of the computer’s organization of relevant data.
Further, with respect to Applicant’s arguments to the combination of Dotan-Cohen, Koenig and Bansal failing to teach all amended limitations, Examiner notes the updated grounds of rejection as well as the motivation to perform such a combination below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 14 and 18, which Claims 17 and 20 depend from respectively, already recite “where the given project is managed in accordance with an agile-waterfall hybrid model”. To repeat this limitation does not further limit the bounds of the claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-2, 6-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for using meeting transcription to inform project management. Therefore, the claim is directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that is directed to a judicial expectation, namely a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will henceforth be used as a representative claim for the 101 rejection until otherwise noted. Claim 1 recites:
An apparatus comprising: at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory, the at least one processing device, when executing program code, is configured to: receive a transcript of a conversation, wherein the conversation pertains to at least one goal of a given project; generate one or more keywords from the conversation using a natural language processing algorithm; determine one or more intents of the one or more keywords using a second natural language processing algorithm; provide an alert regarding the conversation to at least a second processing device; generate a data structure representing a lifecycle of the at least one goal of the given project, wherein generating the data structure is based at least in part on the one or more determined intents of the one or more keywords from the conversation, wherein the data structure comprises one or more transition states associated with the at least one goal, and wherein the transition states are automatically tracked against one or more time instances; and facilitate management of the given project based on the generated data structure, wherein the given project comprises a software product development project.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers a mental process. “receive a transcript”, “generate keywords”, “generate a data structure representing a lifecycle of at least one goal of a given project, wherein the data structure comprises one or more transition states associated with the at least one goal”, “facilitate management of the given project based on the generated data structure”, are clearly abstract ideas – namely, these are mental processes that could be performed by a human with a pen and paper, per the MPEP, merely adapting them into the context of a technological environment with computing parts does not preclude them from being abstract. Taking the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of a data structure as a means for storing data, the examiner submits that a written diagram with a person is encompassed by this limitation. Further, as generating the data structure and facilitating the management of a project encompasses managing the human behavior and interactions of the humans completing and communicating about the project, it is also a certain method of organizing human activity.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Independent Claims 14,18 recite abstract ideas by virtue of presenting substantially similar limitations.
Dependent Claims 2, 6-13, 15-17, 19-20 recite abstract ideas by virtue of their dependency on independent Claims 1,14,18 respectively.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into practical application. As noted in the MPEP, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements, such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An apparatus comprising: at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory, the at least one processing device, when executing program code, is configured to: receive a transcript of a conversation, wherein the conversation pertains to at least one goal of a given project; generate one or more keywords from the conversation using a natural language processing algorithm; determine one or more intents of the one or more keywords using a second natural language processing algorithm; provide an alert regarding the conversation to at least a second processing device; generate a data structure representing a lifecycle of the at least one goal of the given project, wherein generating the data structure is based at least in part on the one or more determined intents of the one or more keywords from the conversation, wherein the data structure comprises one or more transition states associated with the at least one goal, and wherein the transition states are automatically tracked against one or more time instances; and facilitate management of the given project based on the generated data structure, wherein the given project comprises a software product development project.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
As it pertains to Claim 1, the additional elements in the claims include “at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory, the at least one processing device, when executing program code, is configured to”, “using a … natural language processing algorithm”, “software product development”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under Step 2A Prong Two.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing an abstract idea.
Independent Claim 18 additionally recites “a computer program product”, “a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium”. These do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by analogous reasoning as above.
Dependent Claims 2, 6-13, 15-17, 19-20 do not recite additional limitations beyond those that are present in Claims from which they are dependent, and therefore also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP, representative independent Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to adding generic computing parts to integrate the mental process into a general technological environment and are well-understood and routine activities.
Independent Claim 18 additionally recites “a computer program product”, “a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium”. These do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more by analogous reasoning as above.
Independent Claim 14 and dependent Claims 2, 6-13, 15-17, 19-20 do not recite additional limitations beyond those that are present in claims from which they are dependent, and therefore also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 13-15, 17-20 , 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotan-Cohen(US 20190340554 A1) in view of Bansal(US 20180321935 A1).
Claims 1, 14, 18
Dotan-Cohen teaches:
An apparatus comprising: at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory,
In [0016], "Each method described herein may comprise a computing process that may be performed using any combination of hardware, firmware, and/or software. For instance, various functions may be carried out by a processor executing instructions stored in memory".
the at least one processing device, when executing program code, is configured to: receive a transcript of a conversation, wherein the conversation pertains to at least one goal of a given project;
In [0142] of Dotan-Cohen, "An example of events used by role feature determiner 294 to determine role feature values includes conversation events of users. Each event could correspond to a conversational event, such as a conversational email or other message sent by the user and/or a verbal conversational event in a meeting. In some implementations, the characteristics of projects (e.g., project characteristics 219) that role feature determiner 294 uses to determine values of role features include characteristic keywords used in the projects and/or meetings. The keywords can include individual keywords and/or keyword phrases extracted from project entities 227 associated with the project. For example, the characteristic keywords can include at least some of the differentiating keywords described above".
generate one or more keywords from the conversation using a natural language processing algorithm;determine one or more intents of the one or more keywords using a second natural language processing algorithm;
In [0142], "An example of events used by role feature determiner 294 to determine role feature values includes conversation events of users. Each event could correspond to a conversational event, such as a conversational email or other message sent by the user and/or a verbal conversational event in a meeting. In some implementations, the characteristics of projects (e.g., project characteristics 219) that role feature determiner 294 uses to determine values of role features include characteristic keywords used in the projects and/or meetings. The keywords can include individual keywords and/or keyword phrases extracted from project entities 227 associated with the project. For example, the characteristic keywords can include at least some of the differentiating keywords described above". In [0146], "Role evaluator 298 may determine project state categories using, for example, natural language processing and/or keyword identification techniques on project content".
provide an alert regarding the conversation to at least a second processing device;
In [0021], “Any of the various project-related information may be stored in a project repository and used to determining content related to a project. For example, role associations to users and/or engagement levels of users may be used to schedule or reschedule project meetings based on the appropriate users for the meeting, to rank project entities for particular users, such as for display to the user, and/or to determine whether to notify or alert particular users, such as when new content is available for the project or when project content is changed or modified”.
generate a data structure representing a lifecycle of the at least one goal of the given project,
In [0193], "Turning now to FIG. 3, a flow diagram is provided that illustrates method 300 for associating roles with users in accordance with implementations of the present disclosure. As shown at block 302, method 300 includes determining occurrences of events with respect to users" In [0194], "At block 304, method 300 includes determining role features of a user based on the occurrences of events that are associated with the user and project entities of a project. For example, role feature determiner 294 can determine role feature values of a user based on the occurrences of events that are associated with the user and project entities 227 of a project corresponding to project repository 293".
wherein generating the data structure is based at least in part on the one or more determined intents of the one or more keywords from the conversation
In [0146], "Role evaluator 298 may determine project state categories using, for example, natural language processing and/or keyword identification techniques on project content”. In [0146], "A project state category may refer to a category that represents a state of a project, such as a milestone, a decision point, a status check, and the like....Role evaluator 298 may determine project state categories using, for example, natural language processing and/or keyword identification techniques on project content". Intents, as outlined in the specification,
"Intent derivation engine 606 derives various intents based on the received keywords. Intents can be categorized as follows:
""As planned"" intent - if no negative words;
""Open question"" intent - if any keywords labeled open question;
""Not able to deliver"" intent - if sentence contains negative words (so called show-stopper words), critical verb (delivery) and noun (082022, this delivery, etc.); and
""Risk in delivery"" intent - if sentence has risk words and supported with a need for further conversation for finalizing",
and so, Dotan-Cohen discloses this limitation in the form of status updates.
See [0004], “In some aspects, a computing system may automatically identify and maintain projects by grouping entities, such as emails, files, contacts, meetings, and appointments, based on similarities between content of those entities, metadata of those entities, and/or detected user interactions, or events, with respect to those entities”. We consider the computer system’s grouping of salient data to encompass an implicit data structure, namely that of the computer’s organization of relevant data.
wherein the data structure comprises one or more transition states associated with the at least one goal
In [0006], "In addition, or alternatively, a role feature may be based on project state categories (e.g., a category that represents a state or phase of the project, such as a decision point, a milestone, a status meeting) assigned to the occurrences of the events". So, we find this limitation is disclosed, as we detect the event along with the project state/milestone of the detected event.
and wherein the transition states are automatically tracked against one or more time instances;
In [0073], "As another example, project entity identifier 282 can generate a time slot as a project entity for projects of users. As used herein, a “time slot” can refer to a data object representing a period of time in which one or more activities can be performed by one or more users on one or more computing devices for one or more projects. In some cases, project entity identifier 282 is configured to generate time slots such that the set of time slots used by system 200 are non-overlapping". Elaborated upon in [0076], "Thus, in some embodiments, project entity identifier 282 generates one or more of the time slots by detecting one or more events corresponding to user activity on one or more computing devices in association with a period of time". Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation(BRI) of this limitation, we consider the automatic detection of the time slots to anticipate the mentioned time instances.
and facilitate management of the given project based on the generated data structure.
In [0017], "Embodiments of the present disclosure relate to computer project management technologies for structuring and capturing various user behavior with respect to projects to improve the ability of a computing system to implement project-related applications and services". Further, examining the flowchart of Figure 3, we clearly see the assignment of roles to users in the context of a project in 306, and determining project-related content in 308.
Dotan-Cohen does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Bansal teaches:
wherein the given project comprises a software product development project
As an example of an application of the invention, [0025] contextualizes, “An agile model, or agile development methodology, may refer to a short, fixed schedule of cycles performed in an iterative process, called a sprint. During a sprint, a team of software developers will complete a software feature from an end-user perspective, referred to as a story, from a backlog of software features desired to be included in the application”.
Dotan-Cohen discloses a system for intelligently parsing data to form associations regarding a project management task. Bansal discloses a system meant to facilitate the management of projects according to a hybrid agile/waterfall methodology. Each reference discloses a means for facilitating project management. Extending the agile-waterfall hybrid approach of Bansal to the system of Dotan-Cohen is applicable as they both pertain to the task of project management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the agile-waterfall hybrid methodology as taught in Bansal and apply that to the system disclosed in Dotan-Cohen. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art. The expected benefit of doing so can be found in [0026] of Bansal, "in practical settings, projects may involve development in accordance with both waterfall and agile development methodologies. For example, projects may include some iterative aspects better suited for the agile development model and some sequential aspects better suited for the waterfall model. As such, a project planning tool that enables hybrid projects to be planned that include the waterfall model and the agile development model may be useful".
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claims 14 and 18 additionally recite “wherein the given project is managed in accordance with an agile-waterfall hybrid model”. This is taught in [0026] of Bansal.
Claim 2
Dotan-Cohen teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, in generating the data structure, the at least one processing device, when executing program code, is further configured to receive a second transcription of a second conversation relating to the at least one goal of the given project, wherein the conversation corresponds to a plurality of project stakeholders.
In [0138], "In some cases, role feature determiner 294 analyzes one or more user conversations, such as conversational data of the conversations, to determine one or more role feature values for one or more users. As used herein, “conversational data” of a conversation refers to at least some of the messages comprising the conversation and/or at least some of the contextual information associated with the conversation...A conversation that role identifier 292 may analyze can be captured by any suitable digital medium and in some cases is facilitated by one or more digital services, such as applications. For example, one or more digital services may be used to manage and track the exchange of conversational messages (i.e., the messages that comprise the conversation) between the users. Examples include instant messaging programs, email programs, chat programs, video chat programs, Voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) programs, text messaging programs, conferencing programs, and more. Examples of the digital mediums include instant messages, emails, streaming or live video, a video file, streaming or live audio, an audio file, VoIP and/or phone transmissions, text messages, recordings, records, or logs of any combination of the forgoing, and more". As we have support for the monitoring of live communication and the notation of relevant differences, we consider maintaining a plurality of transcripts to be described.
Claims 6, 15, 19
Dotan-Cohen teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, in generating the data structure, the at least one processing device, when executing program code, is further configured to suggest the one or more transition states associated with the at least one goal based on the one or more determined intents.
In [0056], "Contextual information extractor 286, in general, is responsible for determining contextual information related to the user profile activity (detected by user activity monitor 280), such as context, features or variables associated with project entities and/or events (e.g., detected keywords), related information, other user-related activity, and is further responsible for associating the determined contextual information with the related events and/or project entities. In some embodiments, contextual information extractor 286 may associate the determined contextual information with a related event or entity and may also log the contextual information with the associated event or entity". We construe the act of "suggesting" one or more transition states to be disclosed by the act of "associating" contextual information to project entities.
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 6.
Claims 7, 22
Dotan-Cohen teaches:
The apparatus of claim 6, wherein suggesting the one or more transition states associated with the at least one goal based on the one or more determined intents further comprises utilizing the one or more determined intents to determine that one or more criteria associated with the at least one goal will not be met.
In [0146], "Role evaluator 298 may determine project state categories using, for example, natural language processing and/or keyword identification techniques on project content".
Claim 22 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 7.
Claims 13, 17, 20
As to Claim 13, Dotan-Cohen teach all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Dotan-Cohen does not teach:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the given project is managed in accordance with an agile-waterfall hybrid model.
However, Bansal teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the given project is managed in accordance with an agile-waterfall hybrid model.
In [0024], “Aspects of the present disclosure describe a project planning tool, such as a software development tool, that may be used to plan projects that include a combination of project planning methodologies. For example, certain projects may be planned according to both a waterfall model and an agile model”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the agile-waterfall hybrid methodology as taught in Bansal and apply that to the system disclosed in Dotan-Cohen. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected as presenting substantially similar limitations as Claim 13.
Claim(s) 8-12, 16, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotan-Cohen(US 20190340554 A1) in view of Bansal(US 20180321935 A1) in further view of Koenig(US 8819617 B1).
Claims 8, 23
As to Claim 8, Dotan-Cohen combined with Bansal teaches all the limitations of Claim 6 as discussed above.
Dotan-Cohen combined with Bansal does not teach:
The apparatus of claim 6, wherein, in generating the data structure, the at least one processing device, when executing program code, is further configured to construct the data structure comprising a first block representing the at least one goal and one or more additional blocks, sequentially connected with the first block, representing the one or more transition states.
However, Koenig teaches:
The apparatus of claim 6, wherein, in generating the data structure, the at least one processing device, when executing program code, is further configured to construct the data structure comprising a first block representing the at least one goal and one or more additional blocks, sequentially connected with the first block, representing the one or more transition states.
With respect to the repository for merging data for project management, in Col 4 Lines 1-7, "The repository is a temporary location for caching the retrieved data. In another aspect, the invention further provides that at least one domain table maps the retrieved data from an associated software development system to the retrieved data from each of the other associated software development systems to create the set of integrated data". Examining the structure of a domain table mapping in Figure 3, we see the means to logically group relevant data, i.e. according to Release or Testing planning. Further, within a grouping, for example "RTC Release A" 301 block, we can see that it is clearly comprised of a plurality of enumerated User Stories, logically mapping to the goals represented by the blocks and transition states.
Dotan-Cohen combined with Bansal discloses a system for intelligently parsing data to form associations regarding a project management task. Koenig discloses a system meant to interface with third party software development systems and aggregate data. Each reference discloses a means for interfacing with data to facilitate project management. Extending the system as recorded in Koenig to interface with the project management software as mentioned in Dotan-Cohen combined with Bansal is applicable as Koenig is inherently designed to integrate data from third party project management software.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to leverage the data integration platform of Koenig and apply that to the project management platform as taught in Dotan-Cohen combined with Bansal. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adoption would enable users to streamline data querying and access of the underlying project information.
Claim 9
As to Claim 9, Dotan-Cohen combined with Bansal and Koenig teaches all the limitations of Claim 8 as discussed above.
Koenig also teaches:
The apparatus of claim 8, wherein, in constructing the one or more additional blocks of the data structure, the at least one processing device, when executing program code, is further configured to enable at least one of a plurality of project stakeholders to edit information associated with the one or more additional blocks.
In Col 20 Lines 3-15, "In another embodiment, this merged data can also be useful by allowing the managers, developers, testers, and other team members to interactively use and manipulate the merged data as items change, issues arise or other releases, projects, stories, tasks, tests or other process development items are created, edited or deleted. Such interactive manipulation of the merged data again allows the user to have a consolidated view, and/or detailed view as needed, allowing users to add, edit and remove merged data in real-time without going into each individual software development system. After editing and saving such changes, data is persisted back to the plurality of software development systems keeping each of the systems current without duplicating effort".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to leverage the data integration platform of Koenig and apply that to the project management platform as taught in Dotan-Cohen combined with Bansal. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above in Claim 8.
Claim 10
As to Claim 10, Dotan-Cohen combined with Bansal and Koenig teaches all the limitations of Claim 8 as discussed above.
Koenig also teaches:
The apparatus of claim 8, wherein each of the one or more additional blocks comprises a unique sequential version number.
Examining the structure of a domain table mapping in Figure 3, we see the means to logically group relevant data, i.e. according to Release or Testing planning. Further, within a grouping, for example "RTC Release A" 301 block, we can see that it is clearly comprised of a plurality of uniquely, sequentially enumerated User Stories, logically mapping to the goals represented by the blocks and transition states.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to leverage the data integration platform of Koenig and apply that to the project management platform as taught in Dotan-Cohen combined with Bansal. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above in Claim 8.
Claim 11
As to Claim 11, Dotan-Cohen combined with Bansal and Koenig teaches all the limitations of Claim 8 as discussed above.
Koenig also teaches:
The apparatus of claim 8, wherein each of the one or more additional blocks comprises a value corresponding to a percent of completion of the at least one goal associated with the corresponding one or more transition states.
Again, examining Figure 3 to see the structure of the Domain Table Mapping, the individual user stories within a release, analogizing to independent goals/blocks, can be numbered. In Col 19 Lines 47-49, "In another embodiment, metrics are also shown 600 in the form of percentage complete and overall status 603 such as on target, minor variance and significant variance.".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to leverage the data integration platform of Koenig and apply that to the project management platform as taught in Dotan-Cohen combined with Bansal. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above in Claim 8.
Claims 12, 16
As to Claim 12, Dotan-Cohen combined with Bansal teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Koenig also teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more time instances correspond to one or more release dates of a product of the given project.
In Col 5 Lines 36-50 " In a further embodiment, the computer implemented method further involves creating, via the data management module, at least one task to be completed, wherein the user associates the at least one task to software development information. The software development information can include at least one of a phase in a timeline, sub-task, status, priority level, task size, personnel resource, team, software requirement, software quality testing task, software integration task, software release task, release date, software defect or any combination thereof. The data management module then updates the sub-set of the set of integrated data based on the associated software development information. The data management module caches changes to this sub-set of the set of integrated data in the data repository, or into a plurality of data repositories".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to leverage the data integration platform of Koenig and apply that to the project management platform as taught in Dotan-Cohen combined with Bansal. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above in Claim 8.
Claim 16 is rejected as presenting substantially similar limitations as Claim 12.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotan-Cohen(US 20190340554 A1) in view of Bansal(US 20180321935 A1) in further view of Mann(US 20210342785 A1).
Claim 21
As to Claim 21, Dotan-Cohen combined with Bansal teaches all the limitations of Claim 14 as discussed above.
Dotan-Cohen combined with Bansal does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Mann teaches:
The method of claim 14, wherein providing the alert regarding the conversation to the at least a second processing device further comprises providing the at least a second processing device with the transcript of the conversation and a stakeholder name.
In [0536], “By way of one example, FIG. 45 illustrates interface 4500 with six active communications rules which define the characteristics of communications that are stored in memory…communications rule 4510 recites, “When any meeting ends, create an item storing participant identification, start and end time stamps, conversation transcript, and conversation duration”; and communications rule 4512 recites, “When any meeting ends, create an item storing a list of key words spoken in the communication.” Using each of the communications rules displayed in FIG. 45, the system may pull all data (metadata or characteristics of the communication), log the data memory, and generate an object associated with the table to display the collected data from the communication”.
Dotan-Cohen combined with Bansal discloses a system for intelligently parsing data to form associations regarding a project management task. Mann discloses a system meant to aggregate data salient to organizational planning. Each reference discloses a means for interfacing with data to facilitate project management. Extending the alert system as recorded in Mann to interface with the project management software as mentioned in Dotan-Cohen combined with Bansal is applicable they are both directed to the shared field of endeavor of project and organizational planning.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to leverage the messaging functionality of Mann and apply that to the project management platform as taught in Dotan-Cohen combined with Bansal. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting such an automated system could streamline the access of key data to salient people.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE L XIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/THEODORE XIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623