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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final rejection. Claims 31-34, 38, 40-41, 43-46, 50, 52-53, and 55-70 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 04/13/2023 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-13, and 16-28 (Group I) in the reply filed on 03/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-15, and 29-30 are drawn to a nonelected invention (Group II).
The requirement is still deemed proper and it therefore made FINAL.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 04/17/2026, Amending claims 31, and 43. Cancelling claims 35-37, 39, 42, 47-49, 51, and 54. Adding new claims 55-70.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in light of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 35 USC 103 – the rejection is removed for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below and remarks 10/14/2025 pages 13-17
Applicant's arguments filed 04/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, moreover, any new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Response to Argument under 35 USC 101:
Applicants argue: see applicant remarks pages 14-15
Amended claim 31 recites receiving a user interaction proposing a new start date for a predecessor task, confirming that there is sufficient float between the predecessor task and successor task(s) to avoid changing the start or end date of the successor task(s), and displaying an adjusted float between the predecessor task and the successor task(s) following said confirmation.
When evaluating patentability under Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant's "[S]pecification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement." MPEP § 2106.04( d)(l ). A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSIT A) would appreciate, in light of Applicant's Specification, that the claimed approach solves a problem in the field of project management software, which is an enterprise software solution that enables engineering and project teams to plan complex task executions of a project development plan. See, e.g., Wikipedia, Project Management Software ("A common problem in project management is a difficulty with both viewing and understanding large amounts of fluctuating project data."). 1
In particular, Applicant's Specification notes that "[i]n the field of project management, ... software programs ... are often used to assist with the creation, display and management of the project." Specification, ¶3. The Specification further notes that although these software solutions "should make planning easier and less prone to errors ... , this is often not the case, and many project plans include errors that can catastrophically derail the timeline and costs of a project." Specification, ¶ 4 (emphasis added). The Specification goes on to explain the underlying problem in significant detail. See Specification, ¶¶ 9-42 (explaining how the shortcomings of current software solutions result in the "catastrophic errors" referenced in paragraph four).
Applicant's Specification thereafter explains, in detail, how the claimed approach allows users to propose changes, confirms that the changes will not materially impact dependency relationships (e.g., delay successor task(s), etc.), and displays an adjusted float so that the user can visualize how the proposal impacts the overall project plan. See, e.g., Specification,¶ 43-46.
From this, a POSIT A would appreciate that the claimed approach reflects an
improvement in the field of enterprise project management software and amended claim 31 is therefore patent-eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two. Independent claims 43, 59 and 66 recite features similar to the above-discussed features of independent claim 31, and are likewise also patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests the rejection of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagree:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recites the additional limitation of a system, a memory, a database, a display, a graphical user interface are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 31, 43, 59, and 66 does not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. Claims 31, 43, 59, and 66 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include a system, a memory, a database, a display, a graphical user interface are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, with data mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data) the courts have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.059d)).
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
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 31-34, 38, 40-41, 43-46, 50, 52-53, and 55-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 31-34, 38, 40-41, and 55-65 are directed toward a method (process). Claims 43-46, 50, 52-53, and 66-70 are directed to a system (machine). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 31-34, 38, 40-41, 43-46, 50, 52-53, and 55-70 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claim 43 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 31, thus are abstract for the same reasons as claim 31.
Regarding independent claim 31, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 31. (Currently Amended) A method for preparing and optimizing a project plan, the method comprising:
displaying on a graphical user interface (GUI):
a project timeline having a plurality of task graphics representing a plurality of tasks, each of the plurality of task graphics representing a corresponding one of the plurality of tasks having a start date, an end date, and a task duration, wherein at least some of the plurality of task graphics are dependent task graphics representing a predecessor task and one or more successor tasks; and
a linking graphic connecting each of the dependent task graphics on the project timeline;
receiving, via the GUI, user interaction with a task graphic, associated with the predecessor task, that indicates a proposed new start date on the project timeline for the predecessor task that is different than an original start date of the predecessor task, the user interaction with the task graphic causing the task graphic to move to the proposed new start date on the project timeline displayed;
determining, by a processor:
a proposed new end date associated with the predecessor task graphic; and
whether there is available float between the predecessor task and the one or more successor tasks to allow the predecessor task to begin on the proposed new start date without changing start or end date(s) of the one or more successor tasks;
responsive to determining that there is available float between the predecessor task and the one or more successor tasks to allow the predecessor task to begin on the proposed new start date without changing the start or end date(s) of the one or more successor tasks displaying the moved task graphic at the proposed new start date and updating the project plan via the processor, including:
updating the start date and the end date of the predecessor- task graphic to the proposed new start date and the proposed new end date, calculating an adjusted float between the predecessor task and the one or more successor tasks based on the updated start date and the updated end of the predecessor task; and
displaying, via the GUI, the adjusted float between the predecessor task and the one or more successor tasks.
Independent claim 66 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 59, thus are abstract for the same reasons as claim 59.
Claim 59 (New) A method for preparing and optimizing a project plan, the method comprising:
displaying on a graphical user interface (GUI):
a project timeline having a plurality of task graphics representing a plurality of tasks, each of the plurality of task graphics representing a corresponding one of the plurality of tasks having a start date, an end date, and a task duration, wherein at least some of the plurality of task graphics are dependent task graphics representing a predecessor task and one or more successor tasks; and
a linking graphic connecting each of the dependent task graphics on the project timeline;
receiving, via the GUI, user interaction with a task graphic, associated with the predecessor task, that indicates a proposed new start date on the project timeline for the predecessor task that is different than an original start date of the predecessor task, the user interaction with the task graphic causing the task graphic to move to the proposed new start date on the project timeline displayed;
determining, by a processor:
a proposed new end date associated with the predecessor task graphic; and
that there is insufficient float between the predecessor task and the one or more successor tasks to allow the predecessor task to begin on the proposed new start date without changing start or end date(s) of the one or more successor tasks;
responsive to determining that there is insufficient float between the predecessor task and the one or more successor tasks to allow the predecessor task to begin on the proposed new start date without changing start or end date(s) of the one or more successor tasks, moving the moved task graphic back to its previous position on the project timeline.
The Applicant's Specification titled " SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PREPARING AND OPTIMIZING A PROJECT PLAN" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for preparing and optimizing a project plan by displaying different information related to a task(s). In example aspects, based on different collected data" (Spec. [0002]). Thus, data analytics to the Specification is a business concept being addressed by the claimed invention.
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 31 and 43 recites the abstract idea of preparing and optimizing a project plan by displaying different information related to a task(s).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 31, 43, 59, and 66 are directed to the abstract idea of preparing and optimizing a project plan by displaying different information related to a task(s). which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions and (ii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of determining preparing and optimizing a project plan by displaying different information related to a task(s). Applicant's claimed invention pertains to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations and because the independent claims 1, and 16 recites the abstract idea of determining preparing and optimizing a project plan by displaying different information related to a task(s). which pertain to "social activities, teaching, and following rules or instruction" expressly categorized under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Furthermore, the claim limitations are also directed towards mental processes because the limitations recite preparing and optimizing a project plan by displaying different information related to a task(s) based on information inputted by the user that evaluate the task data. Which is “observation, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” expressly categorized under mental processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 32-34, 38, 40-41, 44-46, 50, 52-53, 60-65, and 67-70 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 32 (similarly claims 44, and 60) determining a project plan start date equal to an earliest start date for all the task graphics; and displaying a project plan start date graphic on the project timeline at the determined project plan start date.
claim 33 (similarly claim 45) displaying each task graphic having a task graphic start position on the project timeline representing the task start date, and a task graphic end position that is a predetermined distance from the task graphic start position regardless of the task end date, wherein the predetermined distance is the same for each task graphic.
claim 34 (similarly claim 46) determining for each set of dependent task graphics: whether the predecessor task end date is later than the predecessor task graphic end position; and whether the successor task graphic start position is later than the predecessor task end date; and responsive to a determination that the predecessor task end date is later than the predecessor task graphic end position and the successor task graphic start position is later than the predecessor task end date,
displaying the linking graphic on the project timeline between the dependent task graphics as: a first segment having a first style between the predecessor task graphic end position and the predecessor task end date to represent the predecessor task duration, and
a second segment having a second style between the predecessor task end date and the successor task graphic start position to represent the float between the dependent tasks.
claim 35 (similarly claim 47) Cancelled
claim 36 (similarly claim 48) Cancelled
claim 37 (similarly claim 49) Cancelled
claim 38 (similarly claims 50, and 61) receiving a user input to add or edit a resource needed to implement the project plan, the resource being associated with one or more of the task graphics;
determining any conflicts in use of the resource for each time interval on the project timeline; and
displaying any resource conflicts.
claim 39 (similarly claim 51) Cancelled
Claim 40 (similarly claim 52) displaying a running total of the costs as a graphical cost representation overlaid on the project timeline at each time interval, wherein the graphical cost representation dynamically updates in real-time as task graphics are changed in the timeline to show immediate cost impact.
Claim 41 (similarly claim 53) receiving a user input of a new task graphic;
determining one or more likely dependent task graphics associated with the new task graphic;
prompting a user selection of the one or more likely dependent task graphics; and
responsive to the user selecting at least one of the likely dependent task graphics, displaying the selected likely dependent task graphic on the project timeline.
Claim 55 (similarly claims 62, and 67) wherein the predecessor task and the one or more successor tasks are finish to start (FS) dependent tasks such that the one or more successor tasks that cannot begin until the predecessor task is complete.
claim 56 (similarly claims 63, and 68) wherein the predecessor task and the one or more successor tasks are start to start (SS) dependent tasks such that the one or more successor tasks cannot begin until the predecessor task has begun.
claim 57 (similarly claims 64, and 69) wherein the predecessor task and the one or more successor tasks are finish to finish (FF) dependent tasks such that the one or more successor tasks cannot be completed until the predecessor task is complete.
claim 58 (similarly claims 65, and 70) wherein the predecessor task and the one or more successor tasks are finish to start (FS) dependent tasks such that the one or more successor tasks cannot be completed until the predecessor task has begun.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 31, 43, 59, and 66.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 31-34, 38, 40-41, 43-46, 50, 52-53, and 55-70 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 31 (similarly claims 43, 59, and 66) include the following bolded additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claims 31 and 59. A graphical user interface (GUI) and a processor
Claims 43, and 66.
a system, a memory, a database, a display, a graphical user interface
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claim 31, 43, 59, and 66 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a system, a memory, a database, a display, a graphical user interface. which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2).
The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, the computing platform includes generic processors, memories, and communication interfaces. Paragraph [0048-0049] of the specification. Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 31, 43, 59, and 66 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for preparing and optimizing a project plan by displaying different information related to a task(s) and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention preparing and optimizing a project plan by displaying different information related to a task(s). When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 32-34, 38, 40-41, 44-46, 50, 52-53, 55-58, 60-65, and 67-70 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 31, 43, 59, and 66 respectively, for example, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the additional elements: This limitation is at most merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. This limitation is at most merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 31, 43, 59, and 66, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 31, 43, 59, and 66, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 31-34, 38, 40-41, 43-46, 50, 52-53, and 55-70 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of Claims 31, 43, 59, and 66. a system, a memory, a database, a display, a graphical user interface. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to preparing and optimizing a project plan by displaying different information related to a task(s).
Claims 31-34, 38, 40-41, 43-46, 50, 52-53, and 55-70 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, Examiner has fully considered applicant’s argument and amendments. See applicant remarks pages 14-18.
The closest prior art of record are Ponce de Leon US 2008/0195452: Interactive graphics-based planning systems, Remsberg et al. US 2011/0271220: Project progress display and monitoring, Lacy US 2021/0233007: Adaptive grouping of work items, Mohammed, Susan, and David A. Harrison. "The clocks that time us are not the same: A theory of temporal diversity, task characteristics, and performance in teams." Organizational behavior and human decision processes 122.2 (2013): 244-256. None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in independent claims 31 and 43, “receiving, via the GUI, user interaction with a task graphic, associated with the predecessor task, that indicates a proposed new start date on the project timeline for the predecessor task that is different than an original start date of the predecessor task, the user interaction with the task graphic causing the task graphic to move to the proposed new start date on the project timeline displayed; determining, by a processor: a proposed new end date associated with the predecessor task graphic; and whether there is available float between the predecessor task and the one or more successor tasks to allow the predecessor task to begin on the proposed new start date without changing start or end date(s) of the one or more successor tasks; responsive to determining that there is available float between the predecessor task and the one or more successor tasks to allow the predecessor task to begin”, and in independent claims 59, and 66, “receiving, via the GUI, user interaction with a task graphic, associated with the predecessor task, that indicates a proposed new start date on the project timeline for the predecessor task that is different than an original start date of the predecessor task, the user interaction with the task graphic causing the task graphic to move to the proposed new start date on the project timeline displayed; determining, by a processor: a proposed new end date associated with the predecessor task graphic; and that there is insufficient float between the predecessor task and the one or more successor tasks to allow the predecessor task to begin on the proposed new start date without changing start or end date(s) of the one or more successor tasks; responsive to determining that there is insufficient float between the predecessor task and the one or more successor tasks to allow the predecessor task to begin”. The reason for withdrawn the art rejection under 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 31-34, 38, 40-41, 43-46, 50, 52-53, and 55-70 in the instant application is not apply because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. US 11,610,670: System and method of dynamically generating work assignments.
Mann et al. US 20210342785: Digital processing systems and methods for virtual file-based electronic white board in collaborative work systems.
Cella WO2021/092260: Control tower and enterprise management platform for value chain networks.
Sivakumar et al. US 2016/0203434: Factory management system.
Caillau et al. US 2016/0180281: Managing a task.
Ricketts US 2009/0043632: Managing business process calendars.
Mohammed, Susan, and David A. Harrison. "The clocks that time us are not the same: A theory of temporal diversity, task characteristics, and performance in teams." Organizational behavior and human decision processes 122.2 (2013): 244-256.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached on (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights