DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication of May 2, 2025, Applicant, on September 16, 2025, amended claims 6 & 9, canceled claims 7 & 8, and added claims 16-20. Claim 1-5 & 10-15 were previously withdrawn for being directed to the non-elected invention. Claims 1-6 & 9-20 are now pending in this application, and of the pending claims, claim 6, 9, & 16-20 have been rejected below.
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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 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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to claims are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections are withdrawn. However, new grounds for rejection pursuant to 35 USC 112 necessitated by Applicant’s amendment are set forth below.
Applicant's amendments are not sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections are maintained below.
Applicant's amendments are not sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 102 rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections are updated and maintained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks with respect to the amendments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s remarks, while the remarks regarding the amendments are acknowledged, the amended claims are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 112, 35 USC 101, 35 USC 102, and 35 USC 103 for reasons detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, First Paragraph
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the task management platform is a Kanban board.” However, Applicant’s specification does not in expressly or inherently require the task management platform is a Kanban board, as the claims require.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the task management platform is a project backlog.” However, Applicant’s specification does not in expressly or inherently require the task management platform is a project backlog, as the claims require.
In order to satisfy the written description requirement, each claim limitation must be expressly or inherently supported by the disclosure. MPEP 2163 (emphasis added). “The 'written description' requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor's obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed.” Capon v. Eshhar, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent's term. See MPEP 2163 (emphasis added).
For claims directed toward computer-implemented functions, like the presently claimed invention, “[i]f the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.” MPEP 2161.01 (emphasis added). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the written description requirement requires that the specification explains how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function. Examining Claims for Compliance with 35 USC 112(a) - PowerPoint of Computer Based Training, Slides 20 & 21, (emphasis added) available at http://www.uspto.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/uspto_112a_ part1_17aug2015.pptx. The ability of one skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention does not satisfy the written description requirement if details of how the function is to be performed are not disclosed. Id. at Slide 20.
With respect to the recitation of “wherein the task management platform is a Kanban board,”nothing in the Specification expressly or inherently requires the task management platform is a Kanban board, as claim 16 requires.
In addition, with respect to the recitation of “wherein the task management platform is a project backlog,” nothing in the Specification expressly or inherently requires the task management platform is a project backlog, as claim 17 requires.
Applicant’s specification is completely silent with respect to the management platform being either a Kanban board, as required by claim 16, or a project backlog, as required by claim 17.
For the reasons set forth above, the Specification does not inherently nor expressly support “wherein the task management platform is a Kanban board” nor “wherein the task management platform is a project backlog,” as required by claims 16 and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, Second Paragraph
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.
Claim 6, 9, & 16-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "A method of assigning a level on the platform to an individual or group of individuals." This claim previously introduces “A task management platform” and later refers to it as “the task management platform,” and thus, it is unclear whether “the platform” refers to “the task management platform” previously introduced or another platform that is different from “the task management platform.” Moreover, in this limitation, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the platform” in this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the newly attained level.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9 & 16-20 depend on claim 6 and do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies, and thus, these claims are rejected for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 6.
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 6, 9, & 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under prong 1 of Step 2A, claim 6, and similarly claims 9 & 16-20, recites “[a] method of assigning rewards in the context of task management …, comprising: a. A task management …, b. A set of tasks/work items that are managed by the task management …, c. A set of actions which an individual, or group of individuals, can take to create a task/work item, d. A set of levels, e. A method of assigning a level on … to an individual or group of individuals, f.A method of increasing the level of an individual or group of individuals following the completion of a task, g. A non-monetary reward that is assigned after the attainment of certain levels. h. A method of assigning a reward to a level, and Whereby, upon completion of a task in the task management …, the level of the individual or group of individuals that completed the task is increased and a reward is granted if a reward is associated with the newly attained level.” Claims 6, 9, & 16-20, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of assigning rewards in the context of task management of tasks performed by individuals by providing task management, a set of tasks, actions individuals can to create tasks they perform, assigning levels to individuals upon completing a task, and assigning a reward once individuals complete tasks if an award is associated with the level.
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited assigning rewards in the context of task management of tasks performed by individuals by providing task management, a set of tasks, actions individuals can to create tasks they perform, assigning levels to individuals upon completing a task, and assigning a reward once individuals complete tasks if an award is associated with the level could all be reasonably interpreted as a human outputting tasks, actions, and levels individuals can achieve manually and/or with a pen and paper, a human using judgment and performing an evaluation to assign levels and rewards to individuals who perform tasks and attain a next level, and a human providing the assigned levels and rewards manually and/or with a pen and paper; therefore, the claims recite a mental processes. In addition, each of these limitations mange the human behavior of human users by assigning rewards in the context of task management of tasks performed, providing tasks, actions, and rewards achieved by individuals, and assigning levels and rewards as human individuals complete tasks, and thus, the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. Further, with respect to the dependent claims, aside from the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea addressed below under the second prong of Step 2A and 2B, the limitations of dependent claims 9 & 16-20, recite similar further abstract limitations to those discussed above that narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims because, aside from the generic computer components and systems performing the claimed functions the limitations of claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities that manage personal human behavior and mental processes that can be practically performed mentally by observing, evaluating, and judging information mentally and/or with a pen and paper. Accordingly, since the claims recite mental processes and a certain method of organizing human activity, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of “platform with a user interface” and “platform” in claim 6, and similarly in claims 9 & 16-20; however, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Further, these elements generally link the abstract idea to a field of use. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 9 & 16-20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, electronic record keeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 9 & 16-20 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 6, 9, & 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6, 9, & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by Huff, et al. (US 20170017886 A1), hereinafter Huff.
Regarding claim 6, Huff discloses a method of assigning rewards in the context of task management software, comprising: (Abstract):
a. A task management platform with a user interface ([0036], the networking and interaction interface 120 may comprise a web-based interface, which may be accessed by user(s) 180 over a web browser or other networked application, [0066], [0069]-[0070], fig. 11, process 1100 for the organization culture measurement system 100 to receive user actions as part of one or more implementations of operation 320 of FIG. 3 performed using the networking and interaction interface 120 as an intermediary, wherein at operation 1140, the networking and interaction interface operation module 200 may receive one or more challenges, such as from users or super users, for persons in the organization to participate in particular ways, e.g., a user may post to the networking and interaction interface 120 a challenge to users to obtain particular cultural signifiers, and at operation 1150,),
b. A set of tasks/work items that are managed by the task management platform ([0039], the super user 190 may issue one or more challenges to user(s) 180 through the networking and interaction interface 120, such as to request that one or more user(s) 180 to which particular classifications have been assigned perform a task, challenge user(s) 180 to attain particular cultural signifiers, such as badges. may provide incentives, challenges, and/or other incentives in order to affect or otherwise shift organizational culture),
c. A set of actions which an individual, or group of individuals, can take to create a task/work item, ([0042]-[0044], the networking and interaction interface 120 may send indications of content, actions, and/or challenges received from users, such as user(s) 180, to the networking and interaction interface operation module 200, and the networking and interaction operation interface 200, may receive indications of actions performed by users in the networking and interaction interface 120, and then the networking and interaction interface operation module 200 may forward the indication of the action to the action queue 230, at operation 320, the networking and interaction interface 120 may receive one or more actions, such as from user(s) 180 interacting with the networking and interaction interface 120, [0066], [0069]-[0070], fig. 11, the networking and interaction interface operation module 200 may receive one or more responses to the received challenges, [0071]-[0072], at operation 1210, where the action queue 230 may queue the indication of the action that has been received from the networking and interaction interface operation module 200, and at operation 1230, the organization culture measurement system 100 may update a cultural signifier assignment for a user for which the action indication was received),
c. a reward system ([0032], the organizational culture measurement system may utilize a rule-based architecture to assign cultural classifications and/or cultural signifiers, [0080], the organization culture measurement system 100 may assign a cultural signifier if actions are performed),
d. A set of levels ([0032], actions by users in the networking and interaction interface may be received by the organization culture measurement system and used to associate one or more cultural classifications with users),
e. A method of assigning a level on the platform to an individual or group of individuals,
f. A method of increasing the level of an individual or group of individuals following the completion of a task ([0032], actions by users in the networking and interaction interface may be received by the organization culture measurement system and used to associate one or more cultural classifications with users, wherein actions may be summed or otherwise aggregated to assign cultural classifications on a real-time basis, and the organizational culture measurement system may utilize a rule-based architecture to assign cultural classifications, [0071], at operation 1210, where the action queue 230 may queue the indication of the action that has been received from the networking and interaction interface operation module 200, and at operation 1220, the organization culture measurement system 100 may update user classifications based on the received action indication),
g. A non-monetary reward that is assigned after the attainment of certain levels ([0032], actions by users in the networking and interaction interface may be received by the organization culture measurement system and used to associate one or more cultural signifiers with users, [0048], currency points may be earned automatically as a result of earning a classification and/or a cultural signifier, e.g., the amount of points earned through these automatic techniques may be modified, such as by a super user who wishes to incentivize particular behavior, e.g., in an organization where a super user wishes to incentivize creative thinking, the super user may apply a multiplier to points earned by creative actions, [0071]-[0072], after operation 1220 where user classifications are updated based on the received action indication, next, at operation 1230, the organization culture measurement system 100 may update a cultural signifier assignment for a user for which the action indication was received)
h. A method of assigning a reward to a level, and
Whereby, upon completion of a task in the task management platform, the level of the individual or group of individuals that completed the task is increased and a reward is granted if a reward is associated with the newly attained level ([0032], actions by users in the networking and interaction interface may be received by the organization culture measurement system and used to associate one or more cultural signifiers with users, [0048], currency points may be earned automatically as a result of earning a classification and/or a cultural signifier, [0046], [0056]-[0058], rule checking module 240 determines that one or more rules have been satisfied and that cultural classifications and signifiers are to be modified, e.g., a condition may be met if the rule checking module 240 can find an action that repeats a specified number of times with a given periodicity, e.g., the action happen X times per Y, where Y is some period of time, if an action that repeats a specified number of times, wherein conditions may be defined in a condition container, and condition containers may be combined via one or more logical And, Or, and Not connectives, and a condition container may be considered to be True when a set of one or more logically connected condition containers evaluates to True when run against an incoming action, a "goal met" function may be run, [0071]-[0072], after operation 1220 where user classifications are updated based on the received action indication, next, at operation 1230, the organization culture measurement system 100 may update a cultural signifier assignment for a user for which the action indication was received).
.
PNG
media_image1.png
578
898
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Huff discloses the method of Claim 6 (as above) wherein each task has an associated point value that is added to the individual or group of individuals level, and the next level is attained by collecting sufficient points ([0032], actions may be summed or otherwise aggregated to assign cultural classifications, [0046], [0056]-[0058], rule checking module 240 determines that one or more rules have been satisfied and that cultural classifications and signifiers are to be modified, e.g., a condition may be met if the rule checking module 240 can find an action that repeats a specified number of times with a given periodicity, e.g., the action happen X times per Y, where Y is some period of time, if an action that repeats a specified number of times, wherein conditions may be defined in a condition container, and condition containers may be combined via one or more logical And, Or, and Not connectives, and a condition container may be considered to be True when a set of one or more logically connected condition containers evaluates to True when run against an incoming action, a "goal met" function may be run, [0063], repetition entry field 820 allows a super user may enter a number of times that he or she wishes the selected condition to be performed for the badge to be earned, e.g., for the particular badge being created to be earned, a user must perform the "Post on Postboard" action 5 times in order to satisfy the condition of this particular badge, [0075], different actions may contribute differently to a user's cultural classification, e.g., action 1340 achieved by a user simply for leaving a rating of "funny" on another user's comment, may contribute a single point to the user's "Teamster" classification, action 1330 achieved by a user being rated as funny, may contribute five points to the same classification, and through the assignment of different point values to different actions, an organization may incentivize performance of particular by users over others).
Regarding claim 18, Huff discloses the method of Claim 6 (as above) wherein completion of a task directly results in attaining the next level for the individual or group of individuals that completed the task ([0032], actions by users in the networking and interaction interface may be received by the organization culture measurement system and used to associate one or more cultural classifications with users, wherein actions may be summed or otherwise aggregated to assign cultural classifications on a real-time basis, and the organizational culture measurement system may utilize a rule-based architecture to assign cultural classifications, [0071], at operation 1210, where the action queue 230 may queue the indication of the action that has been received from the networking and interaction interface operation module 200, and at operation 1220, the organization culture measurement system 100 may update user classifications based on the received action indication, [0075], different actions may contribute differently to a user's cultural classification, e.g., action 1340 achieved by a user simply for leaving a rating of "funny" on another user's comment, may contribute a single point to the user's "Teamster" classification, action 1330 achieved by a user being rated as funny, may contribute five points to the same classification, and through the assignment of different point values to different actions, an organization may incentivize performance of particular by users over others).
Regarding claim 19, Huff discloses the method of Claim 6 (as above) wherein the granted reward is a virtual item/decoration that is redeemable and usable within the task management platform ([0045]-[0046], after receiving the forwarded action indication, if the rule checking module 240 determines that one or more rules have been satisfied, the rule checking module 240 may determine that one or more cultural signifiers, such as awards, mascots or badges, may be associated with the user or users for which an action indication was received and also determine that the user has earned one or more points for marketplace purchases, and if the rule checking module 240 determines that one or more rules have been satisfied and cultural signifiers are to be assigned, and/or marketplace points are to be earned, the rule checking module 240 may communicate with the notification generation module 260 to inform users that they have received new cultural signifier, such as a badge, and/or marketplace points and indication of the behavior that generated the cultural signifier, [0048], currency points may be earned automatically as a result of earning a classification and/or a cultural signifier, the organization culture measurement system 100 may further provide a marketplace (not pictured) whereby a user may purchase intangible goods using a point-based currency, the points may be maintained by the cultural measurement storage 210 for conversion into goods and/or services, wherein the goods and/or services that may be purchased through the marketplace may include, but are not limited to: software products, discounts, online services).
Regarding claim 20, Huff discloses the method of Claim 6 (as above) wherein the granted reward is a physical item redeemable by the individual or group of individuals that completed the task from the individual or group of individuals that created the task ([0048], currency points may be earned automatically as a result of earning a classification and/or a cultural signifier, the organization culture measurement system 100 may further provide a marketplace (not pictured) whereby a user may purchase tangible goods using a point-based currency, the points may be maintained by the cultural measurement storage 210 for conversion into goods and/or services, wherein the goods and/or services that may be purchased through the marketplace may include, but are not limited to: physical products).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 16 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff, et al. (US 20170017886 A1), hereinafter Huff, in view of Jorasch, et al. (US 20210399911 A1), hereinafter Jorasch.
Regarding claim 16, Huff discloses the method of Claim 6 (as above). While Huff discloses all of the above and wherein the task management platform is [used to manage completion of projects] ([0069]-[0070], a user may post to the networking and interaction interface 120 that he or she is looking for persons for a particular project, and a user with a particular cultural classification may volunteer to work on a project for which a challenge was issued), Huff does not appear to expressly disclose the remaining elements of the following limitation, which however, are taught by further teachings in Jorasch.
Jorasch teaches wherein the task management platform is a Kanban board ([0535], [0540], assets may be generated for or within meetings or in any other fashion or for any other purpose, and may include a progress report, progress tracker, indication of accomplishments, indication of milestones, etc., e.g., an asset may include a Kanban Board).
Huff and Jorasch are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of providing rewards and/or recognition to people or teams that have achieved certain levels of achievement. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Huff the ability for a task management platform to be a Kanban board, as taught by Jorasch, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of the task management platform is a Kanban board, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Huff with the aforementioned teachings of Jorasch in order to produce the added benefit of enhancing communications and experiences by improving interactions of people. [0004].
Regarding claim 17, Huff discloses the method of Claim 6 (as above). While Huff discloses all of the above and wherein the task management platform is [used to manage completion of projects] ([0069]-[0070], a user may post to the networking and interaction interface 120 that he or she is looking for persons for a particular project, and a user with a particular cultural classification may volunteer to work on a project for which a challenge was issued), Huff does not appear to expressly disclose the remaining elements of the following limitation, which however, are taught by further teachings in Jorasch.
Jorasch teaches wherein the task management platform is a project backlog ([3088], embodiments facilitate using a set of tags based on an organization's management principle, tags could be provided that mirror the specific language that is used internally, e.g., if an organization is approaching an agile development framework using Scrum, during meetings tags could be presented that represent Daily Scrum for tasks that need to be considered in the next scrum meeting, Product Backlog could be used when new ideas for a product are being presented, etc.).
Huff and Jorasch are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of providing rewards and/or recognition to people or teams that have achieved certain levels of achievement. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Huff the ability for a task management platform to be a project backlog, as taught by Jorasch, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of the task management platform is a project backlog, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Huff with the aforementioned teachings of Jorasch in order to produce the added benefit of enhancing communications and experiences by improving interactions of people. [0004].
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 CHARLES A GUILIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
CHARLES GUILIANO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623