DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-16 and 18-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 17 recite “wherein each processing operation is performed by the processor as a non-manual computational transformation of the respective dataset into a project-state indicator that is not practically performable by a human mind” which is indefinite because it is unclear what constitutes non-manual computational transformation…that is not practically performable by a human mind. Clarification is required.
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 1-4, 6-16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without a practical application and significantly more.
Regarding Step 1,
Step 1 addresses whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. Claim 1 is directed a method, and Claim 14 is directed to a system which are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
Step 2A [prong 1] addresses whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.04.
Claims 1-4, 6-16 and 18-22 recite a judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claim 1, also representative of independent claim 14 for the same abstract features, is provided below with the limitations emphasized that recite the abstract idea of the claimed invention (but for the additional elements (processor and interface) underlined which will be addressed after the abstract idea limitations):
Claim 1 (and Claim 14): A method and system of increasing project productivity utilizing TOC principles in project management, the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
693
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein transformation of the respective dataset into a project-state indicator
As the amended claim limitations above demonstrate, exemplary independent claims 1 and 14 recite the abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” since the steps describe project management by entering, processing, comparing and providing task information for a user to complete a task or project, which is encompassed by business relations and/or also managing behavior/relationships or interactions and following certain rules/instructions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Alternatively, the underlined claim limitations recite “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas as they include steps which can practically be performed in the human mind and/or with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper. The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a calculation or analysis) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation. The limitations recite a mental-process type abstract idea they can be accomplished by including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion for managing a project using TOC principles.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2], Step 2A [prong 2] addresses whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). In this case, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits.
Claims 1-4, 6-16 and 18-22 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 and 14, as exemplary, merely include additional elements providing an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with generic computer hardware and software components, including a generic computer system components comprising:
A non-transitory computer readable medium, software with logic sequences
First, second, and third input interfaces, and a user interface
A processor, a control unit within the processor, pre-programmed first, second and third functions of the control unit, memory
First, second and third outputs provided by the display
A graphic user interface on a display, including windows, and a graphic indicator output by the display
The additional elements above recited at a high-level of generality 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 §2106.05 (a-c & e), in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2).
In this case, the claims merely involve automated steps executed by generic computer processor and device components/elements recited at a high-level of generality performing generic computer functions of inputting and processing project/task information with sets of values and updating/transmitting information via generic computer system to output/display information via a generic user interface, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computational additional elements as recited above.
Even in light of the Specification, there is no indication that the claimed steps performed by the recited additional elements require any specialized computer hardware or particular machine, or invoke any inventive programming. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize any additional computer hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual technological improvement in computer functionality or more technical instructions to apply the judicial exception using any non-generic computer components. See also Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that “mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement”). The additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e). Furthermore, “the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.” See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1098.
Additionally, receiving, transmitting and providing information via a computer and user interface are nothing more than applying the abstract with generic computer components and/or generally linking to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f & h). The Supreme Court made clear in Alice that the mere recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“An abstract idea does not become non-abstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer”). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and even in combination, fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application since they do not impose any non-generic meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B,
Step 2B addresses whether the claims recite "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Claims 1-4, 6-16 and 18-22 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above, the additional elements recited above amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea recited above by adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, and/or providing nothing more than generally linking the use of the abstract to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f & h).
As discussed above, the additional elements of transmitting and receiving information to and from the computer device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer device and components. Automating the recited claimed features using a computer does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible since it the recited elements are insufficient to provide an inventive concept and fail to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additionally, the Specification describes the additional elements recited above in general terms, without describing any non-generic specialized particular components. Thus, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting generic computer components, therefore ineligible. The claimed generic additional elements individually operate in their ordinary and generic capacities and there is nothing in the Applicant’s Specification to indicate that the operations recited require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions, e.g., inputting, processing, updating and displaying project productivity data/information. See also Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (gathering, sending, monitoring, analyzing, selecting, and presenting information does not transform the abstract process into a patent eligible invention); Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”).
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the claimed limitations is equally generic and otherwise held to be abstract since the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354– 56 (holding that the sequence of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real-time was abstract); Bozeman, 955 F.3d at 980–91 (holding that sequence of receiving, storing, receiving, and determining data and sending data based on the results of the determining did not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention).
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-13, 15-16 and 18-22 merely reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments, for example claim 2 includes entering a fourth input by entering the clear path productivity and the ManDays completed; and processing the fourth input by multiplying the ManDays completed by the clear path productivity, and displaying a Throughput value to a user, claim 3 includes entering a fifth input of the ManDays worked and the Throughput; processing the fifth input by dividing the Throughput by the ManDays worked; and displaying a Productivity value to a user, claim 4 recites entering the second set of values further comprises: ManDays worked per interval of time; remaining ManDays at the interval of time; or ManDays used for rework, claims 6-8 recites producing a Project Completion Profile based on one or more of the initial set of values, the second set of values, and the third set of values, forecasting from the Project Completion Profile, forecasting Projected Revenue by time period (Month, quarter, year) for a project using the same additional elements as recited above for gathering and transmitting data, and additional elements of several input interfaces, preprogrammed functions of the control unit, outputs provided by the display, graphic indicator comprising a bar, symbols graphically representing staffing data, and memory yet do not impose any meaningful limits or significantly more. At best, dependent claims provide abstract ideas including processing further task and project information pertaining to productivity and throughput parameters for managing the project or task, and merely using graphical interface elements to display the outputs, which further involve more task and project management input and outputs on a generic computer, which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated above, without imposing any meaningful limits, and failing for provide any improvement to technology.
Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, it has been determined that the claim as a whole, is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since the claim limitations do not amount to a practical application and significantly more than an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant mainly asserts that including various additional elements (processor, input interfaces) automatically “non-generic processor executed instructions” and has directly quoted language from 101 Guidance an Analysis in the Office action under “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas as they include steps which can “practically be performed in the human mind” as a wherein clause directly into the claim language, and nowhere in the specification it describes anything remotely related defining any threshold or definite boundary to the wherein clause amended as “a non-manual computational transformation of the respective dataset into a project-state indicator that is not practically performable by a human mind.”
Using a processor at a high-level of generic computational instructions that is typically expected of a processor to process and receive, i.e., receiving user inputs, processing the inputs with algorithms/functions and displaying the outputs using a generic graphical user interface are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354– 56 (holding that the sequence of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real-time was abstract); Bozeman, 955 F.3d at 980–91 (holding that sequence of receiving, storing, receiving, and determining data and sending data based on the results of the determining did not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention).
Even as admitted by the Applicant, the invention is merely a “functional application through a computer readable medium” and therefore the abstract idea is merely being applied using computer processing elements generically, thus there is no inventive concept under 35 USC 101 that results in a technical improvement to the functioning of the computer or interface technology being used as a tool. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Relevant Prior Art
The relevant prior art made of record below is not relied upon but considered pertinent
to applicant's disclosure and can be found in the current/previous PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
US20110288900 Scheduling Management System, Method and Device
US Pat. 7844480 Method and system for planning and managing multiple projects on demand with critical chain and replenishment
US 20060053043 Enterprise project management system and method
US 20160048785 A computer implemented system and method for project controls
US 20070112652 Throughput accounting for professional, scientific and technical services
US 20200065759 Analyzing, Coordinating, and Optimizing Innovation, Engineering, Manufacturing, and Logistics Infrastructures
US 20120010901 System and method to schedule resources in delivery of healthcare of a patient
US 20140343999 Risk-aware project scheduling techniques
US 20150269512 Productivity Assessment and Rewards Systems and Processes Therefor
US 20100161383 Profit optimizer
H. Steyn, Project management applications of the theory of constraints beyond critical chain scheduling, International Journal of Project Management, Volume 20, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 75-80, ISSN 0263-7863, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00054 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786300000545)
Azar Izmailov, Diana Korneva, et al. Project Management Using the Buffers of Time and Resources, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 235, 2016, Pages 189-197, ISSN 1877-0428, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.11.014. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042816315488)
US 20140229212 Method and system for managing construction projects
US 20140277666 Systems and methods for generating scheduling options in consideration of specific space constraints within a construction site
US 20140032255 System and method for schedule optimization
US 20060010418 Facilitation of multi-project management using throughput measurement
V. Hargaden and J. K. Ryan, "Resource Planning in Engineering Services Firms," in IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 578-590, Nov. 2015, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2015.2457675.
L. L. Brennan and R. A. Orwig, "Insights from manufacturing scheduling for work allocation in knowledge-intensive firms," PICMET '99: Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology. Proceedings Vol-1: Book of Summaries IEEE Cat. No.99CH36310), Portland, OR, USA, 1999, pp. 479-484 vol.2, doi: 10.1109/PICMET.1999.787845.
P. Rodenbeck and T. Schumacher, "New tools in project planning: An introduction to the Rodenbeck Project Tower," 2012 Proceedings of PICMET '12: Technology Management for Emerging Technologies, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2012, pp. 2492-2505.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to LAURA YESILDAG whose direct telephone number is (571) 270-5066 and work schedule is generally Monday-Friday, from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful for any urgent matter that needs immediate attention, the Examiner’s Supervisor, LYNDA JASMIN, can be reached at (571) 272-6782.
Examiner interviews can be requested by telephone or are available using the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
In order to receive any email communication from the Examiner, filing for official authorization for Internet Communication is required. The authorization form can be accessed at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information about the USPTO Patent Center, please access https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ The USPTO Electronic Business Center can be contacted for questions regarding the Patent Center by calling 1-866-217-9197.
/LAURA YESILDAG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629