DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the arguments and amendments filed December 19, 2025.
Claims 1, 2, and 10 have been amended.
Claim 6 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al [7,895,104], hereafter Lee, in view of Guiliano et al [2019/0244313], hereafter Guiliano.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a computer-implemented method of facilitating processing of project data, comprising: receiving an electronic project document comprising one or more content segments, wherein the electronic project document is associated with one or more document sources; analyzing the one or more content segments to identify entities of interest comprised in the one or more content segments (Fig 2, C7:23 to C8:43 and C10:28-64; Lee discloses receiving a patent document and providing a level I analysis based on document sources including financial and legal sources. The entity of interest is based on the document and other information gathered within the level I/II analysis.);
retrieving, from a data source, aggregated information associated with one or more of the identified entities of interest and the one or more document sources (Fig 2, C6:46-64; Lee discloses aggregating the document information based on the document sources.);
receiving a user input selecting at least a first content segment of the one or more content segments; and in response to receiving the user input, modifying a displayed user interface to display, in a first panel, the selected first content segment and to concurrently display, in a second panel, retrieved aggregated information associated with at least a first entity of interest comprised in the selected first content segment (Fig 2, 5, C7:23 to C8:43 and C10:28-64; Lee discloses receiving a patent document and providing a level I analysis based on document sources including financial and legal sources. The entity of interest is based on the document and other information gathered within the level I/II analysis. In terms of the display, Lee discloses [C12:25 to C13:67] the concurrent display and other elements including the aggregated information and content segments based on selected information within a second panel.).
Lee discloses the above-enclosed limitations, however, Lee does not specifically disclose a project document, determining project complexity, or other score types.
Guiliano teaches receiving an electronic project document comprising one or more content segments, wherein the electronic project document is associated with one or more document sources (Fig 2A, 2B, 3, 5, 7, 8, and paragraphs [54-59 and 76-79]; Guiliano teaches a similar document management system that specifically provides project management for a similar IP application based on imported application number and project documentation content. The combination if that Lee provides the display, modification, and management elements based on document sources and Guiliano provides the specific project document providing content.);
determining an objection intensity score based on one or more of a type of the identified entities of interest and a status of the identified entities of interest, the objection intensity score represents a likelihood of success of a project associated with the identified entities of interest; and determining a project complexity score based on two or more of a type of the identified entities of interest, a status of the identified entities of interest, the document source and the retrieved aggregated information, the project complexity score reflects a time required to complete the project (Paragraphs [133-141]; Guiliano teaches an Overall/User/Core rating score (interpreted as intensity and complexity) that is based on the patent prior art (interpreted as document source), concept, and prior art elements (interpreted as status). Further, within the combination, lee [C3:1 to C4:28 and C4:30-67] provides analysis for status based on Art Unit, allowance, predictive timing of events, and other aspects of document analysis that also falls within the scoring elements provided. In terms of what the score represents or reflects, these aspects are describing intended result and the functional aspects are what the score is based on respectively. The descriptive, intended nature of the score is not provided as a functional aspect based on the score but rather what the score represents or reflects. As such, the reflects and represents are non-functional descriptive material. Refer to MPEP 2173.).
The combination teaches an IP project management system that provides project content data base don document sources that are aggregated, however, the combination does not specifically teach the scoring elements.
Guiliano further teaches scoring elements based on the types of documents and other project content elements.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the IP project management system that provides project content data base don document sources that are aggregated of the combination the ability to include scoring elements based on the types of documents and other project content elements as taught by Guiliano since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Lee further discloses wherein displaying, in the second panel, the retrieved aggregated information comprises displaying an indication of a current state of the project with respect to the first entity of interest and an indication of at least one predicted future state of the project with respect to the first entity of interest, wherein the indication of the at least one predicted future state of the project is based on analysis of other electronic project documents associated with at least one document source of the one or more document sources (Fig 12, 14, C2:50 to C3:54, and C14:9-28; Lee discloses providing information displays based on selected document sources. This includes predicted alerts and information based on timing of events and allowances. Lee further provides the information displayed with an indication of legal events. Further, Lee provides display elements for the predicted events and probability of action within C14:45-55.).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Lee further discloses wherein the retrieved aggregated information displayed in the second panel is associated with the first entity of interest and a first one of the one or more document sources, and wherein the method further comprises, in response to receiving a user input, modifying the displayed user interface to display, in the second panel, the retrieved aggregated information associated with the first entity of interest and a second one of the one or more document sources (Fig 2, 3, 12, 13, 14, and C13:53 to C14:67; Lee discloses providing a user display with first and second displays based on document sources and selected content for the entity of interest. This is shown through the sub-menus and provided further display based on the selection of content within the first/second display elements.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the computer-implemented method of claim 2,
Lee further discloses further comprising at least one of modifying the indication of the at least one predicted future state of the project to display the at least one predicted future state of the project with respect to both the first entity of interest comprised in the selected first content segment and the first entity of interest comprised in the selected second content segment (Fig 12, 13, 14, C2:50 to C3:54, and C14:9-28; Lee discloses providing information displays based on selected document sources. This includes predicted alerts and information based on timing of events and allowances. Lee further provides the information displayed with an indication of legal events. Further, Lee provides display elements for the predicted events and probability of action within C14:45-55.).
Within the combination, Guiliano teaches modifying the indication of the current state of the project to display an indication of the current state of the project with respect to both the first entity of interest comprised in the selected first content segment and a first entity of interest comprised in a selected second content segment (Fig 2A, 2B, 8, and paragraphs [97-101]; Guiliano teaches the current status of the patent application within the project management system and provides similar display elements for first entity/content and second content with respect to the selected content element.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Lee further discloses wherein analyzing the one or more content segments to identify entities of interest comprised in the one or more content segments comprises, in response to receiving the user input selecting the first one of the one or more content segments, analyzing the first one of the one or more content segments (C14:9-67; Lee discloses providing the display with first and second content that is analyzed to provide predictive elements based on the selected content elements.).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
Guiliano teaches wherein the one or more document sources comprise a project participant and a group of individuals comprising the project participant (Fig 2A and paragraphs [71-75 and 82-83]; Guiliano teaches elements of group and user participant that manually enter the project document sources based on sufficient access.).
The combination teaches an IP project management system that provides project content data base don document sources that are aggregated, however, the combination does not specifically teach the sources are project participants.
Guiliano further teaches project and user participants.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the IP project management system that provides project content data base don document sources that are aggregated of the combination the ability to include project and user participants as taught by Guiliano since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 9, Guiliano further teaches a computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the processor, perform the method of claim 1 (Paragraphs [43 and 46-48]; Guiliano teaches the structural elements to implement the similar project management system. Within the combination, Lee provides in claim 1 [C16:55-58] processor and structural elements.).
The combination teaches an IP project management system that provides project content data base don document sources that are aggregated, however, the combination does not specifically teach the specific structure beyond stating computer-implemented and claiming processors.
Guiliano further teaches structural system elements.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the IP project management system that provides project content data base don document sources that are aggregated of the combination the ability to include structural system elements as taught by Guiliano since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses a computing system for facilitating processing of project data, comprising: a display device configured to display a user interface; display an electronic project document comprising one or more content segments, wherein the electronic project document is associated with one or more document sources (Fig 2, C7:23 to C8:43 and C10:28-64; Lee discloses receiving a patent document and providing a level I analysis based on document sources including financial and legal sources. The entity of interest is based on the document and other information gathered within the level I/II analysis.);
in response to receiving user input selecting at least a first content segment of the one or more content segments, display a first user interface panel comprising the selected first content segment and concurrently display a second user interface panel comprising representations of retrieved aggregated information associated with the one or more document sources and a first entity of interest comprised in the selected at least a first content segment (Fig 2, 5, C7:23 to C8:43 and C10:28-64; Lee discloses receiving a patent document and providing a level I analysis based on document sources including financial and legal sources. The entity of interest is based on the document and other information gathered within the level I/II analysis. In terms of the display, Lee discloses [C12:25 to C13:67] the concurrent display and other elements including the aggregated information and content segments based on selected information within a second panel.).
Lee discloses the above-enclosed limitations, however, Lee does not specifically disclose a project document, the scoring aspects, and structural elements regarding the display and other project management processing system aspects.
Guiliano teaches a processor; and a memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the processor, cause the computing display system to perform operations comprising (Paragraphs [43 and 46-48]; Guiliano teaches the structural elements to implement the similar project management system. Within the combination, Lee provides in claim 1 [C16:55-58] processor and structural elements.).
display an electronic project document comprising one or more content segments, wherein the electronic project document is associated with one or more document sources (Fig 2A, 2B, 3, 5, 7, 8, and paragraphs [54-59 and 76-79]; Guiliano teaches a similar document management system that specifically provides project management for a similar IP application based on imported application number and project documentation content. The combination if that Lee provides the display, modification, and management elements based on document sources and Guiliano provides the specific project document providing content.).
Lee discloses the above-enclosed limitations, however, Lee does not specifically disclose a project document, determining project complexity, or other score types.
determine an objection intensity score based on one or more of a type of the first entity of interest and a status of the first entity of interest, the objection intensity score represents a likelihood of success of a project associated with the first entity of interest and determine a project complexity score based on two or more of a type of the first entity of interest, a status of the first entity of interest, the document source and the retrieved aggregated information, the project complexity score reflects a time required to complete the project (Paragraphs [133-141]; Guiliano teaches an Overall/User/Core rating score (interpreted as intensity and complexity) that is based on the patent prior art (interpreted as document source), concept, and prior art elements (interpreted as status). Further, within the combination, lee [C3:1 to C4:28 and C4:30-67] provides analysis for status based on Art Unit, allowance, predictive timing of events, and other aspects of document analysis that also falls within the scoring elements provided. In terms of what the score represents or reflects, these aspects are describing intended result and the functional aspects are what the score is based on respectively. The descriptive, intended nature of the score is not provided as a functional aspect based on the score but rather what the score represents or reflects. As such, the reflects and represents are non-functional descriptive material. Refer to MPEP 2173.).
The combination teaches an IP project management system that provides project content data base don document sources that are aggregated, however, the combination does not specifically teach the scoring elements.
Guiliano further teaches scoring elements based on the types of documents and other project content elements.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the IP project management system that provides project content data base don document sources that are aggregated of the combination the ability to include scoring elements based on the types of documents and other project content elements as taught by Guiliano since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the system of claim 10,
wherein the retrieved aggregated information displayed in the second user interface panel is associated with the first entity of interest and a first one of the one or more document sources, and wherein the operations further comprise, in response to receiving a user input, modifying the displayed second user interface panel to display the retrieved aggregated information associated with the first entity of interest and a second one of the one or more document sources (Fig 12, 14, C2:50 to C3:54, and C14:9-28; Lee discloses providing information displays based on selected document sources. This includes predicted alerts and information based on timing of events and allowances. Lee further provides the information displayed with an indication of legal events.).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the system of claim 10,
Lee further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a user input selecting at least a second content segment of the one or more content segments; and in response to receiving the user input, at least one of: modifying the displayed first user interface panel to display the selected second content segment and modifying the displayed second user interface panel to display representations of retrieved aggregated information associated with the one or more document sources and a first entity of interest comprised in the selected second content segment (Fig 2, 5, C7:23 to C8:43 and C10:28-64; Lee discloses receiving a patent document and providing a level I analysis based on document sources including financial and legal sources. The entity of interest is based on the document and other information gathered within the level I/II analysis. In terms of the display, Lee discloses [C12:25 to C13:67] the concurrent display and other elements including the aggregated information and content segments based on selected information within a second panel.).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the system of claim 10,
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a user input selecting at least a second content segment of the one or more content segments; and in response to receiving the user input, modifying the displayed first user interface panel to display the selected first content segment and the selected second content segment and modifying the displayed second user interface panel to display representations of retrieved aggregated information associated with the one or more document sources, the first entity of interest comprised in the selected first content segment, and a first entity of interest comprised in the selected second content segment (Fig 2, 5, C7:23 to C8:43 and C10:28-64; Lee discloses receiving a patent document and providing a level I analysis based on document sources including financial and legal sources. The entity of interest is based on the document and other information gathered within the level I/II analysis. In terms of the display, Lee discloses [C12:25 to C13:67] the concurrent display and other elements including the aggregated information and content segments based on selected information within a second panel.).
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the system of claim 10,
Lee further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: in response to receiving the electronic project document, analyzing the one or more content segments to identify corresponding entities of interest (Fig 2, 5, C7:23 to C8:43 and C10:28-64; Lee discloses receiving a patent document and providing a level I analysis based on document sources including financial and legal sources. The entity of interest is based on the document and other information gathered within the level I/II analysis.).
Claim(s) 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al [7,895,104], hereafter Lee, in view of Guiliano et al [2019/0244313], hereafter Guiliano, further in view of Borenstein [2018/0139249].
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the computer-implemented method of claim 1, however, the combination does not specifically teach retrieving a collaborator and providing the collaborator with access;
Borenstein teaches further comprising: in response to receiving a selection of at least one of the first panel and the second panel, displaying a collaboration project space comprising the selected at least one panel; identifying at least one collaborator based on the retrieved aggregated information, wherein the at least one collaborator is, prior to the selection, not a project participant; and providing the at least one collaborator with access to the collaboration project space (Fig 4, 5, and paragraphs [96-107]; Borenstein teaches a similar project management system (specifically to that of Guiliano and the participant elements within the combination for project management) that provides collaborator recommendations based on content upload. This would be in combination with the project data and participants of the combination being provided the ability to be provided recommendations and participants based on the content of the documents.).
The combination teaches a project management system that provides participants, however, the combination does not specifically teach selected a collaboration and collaborator that is not a participant to access the space.
Borenstein teaches a similar project management system that specifically provides participant recommendations and access controls based on the document content.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the project management system that provides participants of the combination the ability to include a similar project management system that specifically provides participant recommendations and access controls based on the document content as taught by Borenstein since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the system of claim 10, however, the combination does not specifically teach retrieving a collaborator and providing the collaborator with access;
Borenstein teaches wherein the operations further comprise: in response to receiving a selection of at least one of the first user interface panel and the second user interface panel, displaying a collaboration project space comprising the selected at least one panel; identifying at least one collaborator based on the retrieved aggregated information, wherein the at least one collaborator is, prior to the selection, not a project participant; and providing the at least one collaborator with access to the collaboration project space (Fig 4, 5, and paragraphs [96-107]; Borenstein teaches a similar project management system (specifically to that of Guiliano and the participant elements within the combination for project management) that provides collaborator recommendations based on content upload. This would be in combination with the project data and participants of the combination being provided the ability to be provided recommendations and participants based on the content of the documents.).
The combination teaches a project management system that provides participants, however, the combination does not specifically teach selected a collaboration and collaborator that is not a participant to access the space.
Borenstein teaches a similar project management system that specifically provides participant recommendations and access controls based on the document content.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the project management system that provides participants of the combination the ability to include a similar project management system that specifically provides participant recommendations and access controls based on the document content as taught by Borenstein since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
In response to the arguments filed December 19, 2025 on pages 7-10 regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, specifically that the combination of elements does not teach the claim limitations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The arguments allege that the combination of Lee in view of Guiliano does not teach the claim limitation regarding the amended language, “determining an objection intensity score based on one or more of a type of the identified entities of interest and a status of the identified entities of interest, the objection intensity score represents a likelihood of success of a project associated with the identified entities of interest; and determining a project complexity score based on two or more of a type of the identified entities of interest, a status of the identified entities of interest, the document source and the retrieved aggregated information, the project complexity score reflects a time required to complete the project”. The cited portions of Guiliano [133-141] teaches an Overall/User/Core rating score (interpreted as intensity and complexity) that is based on the patent prior art (interpreted as document source), concept, and prior art elements (interpreted as status). The arguments allege that Guiliano does not provide intensity that represents likelihood or complexity that represents time required to complete the project. Examiner notes that the alleged elements are not required aspects of the complexity score. The intensity represents likelihood of success but is functionally requiring one or more of a type of the identified entities of interest and a status of the identified entities of interest and the complexity score reflects time to complete, however, functionally requires two or more of a type of the identified entities of interest, a status of the identified entities of interest, the document source and the retrieved aggregated information. The claims are not required to functionally represent or determine the time or likelihood, but rather functionally require the elements that are provided into the score. Further, within the combination, lee [C3:1 to C4:28 and C4:30-67] provides analysis for status based on Art Unit, allowance, predictive timing of events, and other aspects of document analysis that also falls within the scoring elements provided. In terms of what the score represents or reflects, these aspects are describing intended result and the functional aspects are what the score is based on respectively. The descriptive, intended nature of the score is not provided as a functional aspect based on the score but rather what the score represents or reflects. As such, the reflects and represents are non-functional descriptive material. Refer to MPEP 2173. As such, Guiliano teaches the claimed invention in combination with Lee. Lacking any further arguments, claims 1 and 10 are maintaining the 35 USC 103 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended claim limitations.
All rejections made towards the dependent claims are maintained due to the lack of a reply by the applicant in regards to distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action in the prior Office Action (37 CFR 1.111). The Examiner asserts that the applicant only argues that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over Lee in view of Guiliano, and, where appropriate, in further view of Borenstein. Lacking any further arguments, claims 1-5 and 7-15 are maintaining the 35 USC 103 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended claim limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI whose telephone number is (571)272-5687. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am - 5pm (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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629