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 .
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 .
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, 3-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception under the subject matter eligibility two-part statutory analysis, as provided below.
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 according to MPEP §2106.03. Claims 1-8 fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. Independent claim 1, also representative of independent claims 7 and 8 for the same abstract features, is underlined below which recite the following claim limitations, as an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 7 and 8:
acquiring project information inputted by an R&D worker;
outputting the project information;
acquiring applications for a project; and
determining whether or not the project is established, based on the applications for the project.
determining that the project is established in response to determining that a number of applicants of the project has reached a number of recruited persons, and determining that the project is not established in response to determining that the number of applicants of the project has not reached the number of recruited persons;
transmit, in response to determining that the project is established, a project established notification to the user including guidance for a user and transmit, in response to determining that the project is not established, a project unestablished notification to the user, the project unestablished notification comprising information of other recommended projects
The underlined claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas, and includes at least managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) for managing projects. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for managing personal behavior/relationships or interactions between people because the claimed steps recite acquiring project information inputted by an R&D worker; outputting the project information; acquiring applications for a project; and determining whether or not the project is established, based on the applications for the project. Accordingly, since the claimed invention describes a process that falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application according to MPEP §2106.04(d). Claims 1, 7 & 8 include the following additional elements:
An information processing device and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium recording a program, the program causing a computer, comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions;
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions;
acquire and output the project information to a user terminal;
inputted by a plurality of user terminals.
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
The claimed invention merely provides an abstract-idea-based-solution for project management implemented with generic computer processes and components recited at a high-level of generality (receiving, storing, determining, and comparing data) using computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely “apply it” without any meaningful technological limits or any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Additionally, acquiring project information inputted by an R&D worker, and outputting the project information to a user terminal, amounts to data gathering and data outputting, thus does not add any meaningful limitations, and since receiving, storing and transmitting data is considered one of the most basic functions of a computer, these additional elements are deemed as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The legal precedent in Electric Power Group and Ultramercial cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) indicate that selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis and display, and requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access, are all insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into any practical application since they do not impose any non-generic meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B,
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05.
As discussed above, the claimed additional elements recited above amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” using generic computer components and functionality. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components are insufficient to provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the claimed additional elements merely limit the abstract idea to be executed in a computer environment, thus do nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Additionally, re-evaluating the insignificant extra-solution activities listed above, it is determined that they are also well-understood, routine, and conventional, as well. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The legal precedent in Ultramercial, Versata, Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that storing and retrieving information in memory, as well as receipt and transmission of information over a computer network, and updating an activity log are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions claimed in a generic manner, as is the case here. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities) and also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive”).
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements are claimed at a high-level of generality and 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 operating in their ordinary and generic capacities of what is typically expected of computers storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data between generic computer devices. The claimed invention is not patent eligible because the additional elements are merely invoked as tools to execute the abstract idea and thus are insufficient to amount to an inventive concept significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for dependent claims 3-6, they merely further narrow and reiterate the same abstract ideas for storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data using generic data storage and transmittal techniques with the same additional elements as recited above which provide nothing more than applying the abstract idea using generic computer technology components. Therefore the dependent claims are also directed to ineligible subject matter since they do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, after considering all claim elements in claims 1, 3-8 both individually and as an ordered combination, it has been determined that the claimed invention as a whole, is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since nothing in the claim limitations provide significantly more than the abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 of this title, 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.
Note: 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez (US 2015/0081366 in view Kapcar (US 2021/0342527)
Regarding Claims 1, 7, and 8,
Fernandez discloses:
An information processing device [claim 1] and a method [claim 7] comprising a memory configured to store instructions, and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions, and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium recording a program [claim 8], the program causing a computer (Figs. 1-[0024-0027] Fig. 1 computer system 100, central processing unit, computer readable instructions, stored in a computer readable main storage device 115, memory 125 storing data) comprising:
acquire project information inputted by an R&D worker ([0063] FIG. 7 is a screen for inputting information of a new project to be accomplished for the client. FIG. 8 is for inputting information defining a project milestone);
output the project information to a user terminal ([0067] FIG. 21 is a screen showing a list of tasks that have been assigned to a worker working on the project, showing detail of a select task);
acquire applications for a project inputted by a plurality of user terminals (Fig. 3 user terminals 310-320, [0065] Fig. 16 depicts a screen for inputting assets that are part of a project. A project will commonly include within its scope a plurality of such deliverable/assets [applications]. As shown, colors may be used to highlight certain aspects of tasks and assets, [0046] Tasks are thereby easily associated with a specific deliverable of a specific project); and
determine whether or not the project is established, based on the applications for the project ([0019] determining how best to respond to a particular task, group of tasks, or project phase, each team may specify a preferred order in which any task/phase should be processed compared to others. Thus, when a deliverable to be created is entered into the system, for example as part of an asset list, its component tasks behave as a workflow comprising data objects. Tasks are scheduled automatically or recommended by the system, taking into account task priorities specific to the project, and taking into account team attributes, settings for approvals, and automation of certain task phases, [0041-0042] users are provided with a great amount of flexibility in setting up a project, this is realized by establishing one or more standardized contexts. For example, project codenames and activities may be defined in a central list that determines where tasks and conversations associated with these tasks will be viewable. In an embodiment, tasks may be tagged with predetermined tags or sets of tags, and filters may operate on the tags to provide views of information having a scope determined by the tags and by user roles, and tasks may be created and associated with a project activity).
Although the limitations above are disclosed, including whether the project is established ([0046] Tasks are easily associated with a specific deliverable of a specific project. The system may then automatically associate the task to the correct project) based on the user and a number of applications of the project ([0037] generate a work schedule based on attributes of available staff, and [0059] Thus, when a deliverable is entered into the system, for example as part of an asset list, its component tasks behave as a workflow comprising data objects that will be treated in accordance with team attributes that are unique to that team. Tasks are scheduled automatically or recommended, taking into account task priorities specific to the project and taking into account team attributes, settings for approvals, and automation of task phases followed through accordingly yet Fernandez may not specify the project is established based on reaching a number of persons and Kapcar discloses:
determining that the project is established in response to determining that a number of applicants of the project has reached a number of recruited persons, and determining that the project is not established in response to determining that the number of applicants of the project has not reached the number of recruited persons (Examiner notes that an “established project” does not have any specific definition other than existing at any level, therefore fails to differentiate from the art since nothing functionally or structurally is distinguished between a project and an “established” project, nonetheless Kapcar discloses [0046] The matching engine 320 may match workers to job requests on an absolute or percentage basis, wherein matching the number of workers to job requests on an absolute or percentage basis threshold reaching a number of workers wherein the threshold percentage is considered a match, and a near-miss match uses a lower then the threshold percentage);
transmit, in response to determining that the project is established, a project established notification to the user terminal including guidance for a user of the user terminal: and transmit, in response to determining that the project is not established, a project unestablished notification to the user terminal, the project unestablished notification comprising information of other recommended projects (Fig. 6 forward reminder notifications prior to job shifts, Fig. 7 display progress tracker, [0020-023] job/project provisional job matches when the user and match is between job matches that have a percentage compatibility even if not established as identical match for recommended and suggested positions or jobs/projects [0075-0081] where the near-miss criterion is skill-based, the platform suggests a set of positions that the worker user could sign up for that would develop the skills the worker would need to shift the near-miss into a match. In some embodiments, the necessary path may not be available on the platform, and additional notifications are delivered to the user over a period of time as shifts become available to obtain the necessary work experience. The platform generates and delivers a graphic user interface that keeps track of the worker user's progress toward the goal and categorical skills shared between job/project matches based on a percentage match).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Fernandez to incorporate the claimed features as taught by Kapcar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the features of Kapcar for the benefit of “makes use of categorical skill sets that are shared between various types of employment” (Kapcar; [0022]).
Regarding 3, Fernandez further discloses: wherein determine whether or not the project is established, based on human attributes of the user and a number of the applications for the project ([0037] generate a work schedule based on attributes of available staff, and [0059] resources such as time needed to generate deliverables are scheduled according to the particular asset list they are part of, the individual staff or teams of staff which are available for assignment or have been assigned to that particular list, Thus, when a deliverable is entered into the system, for example as part of an asset list, its component tasks behave as a workflow comprising data objects that will be treated in accordance with team attributes that are unique to that team. Tasks are scheduled automatically or recommended, taking into account task priorities specific to the project and taking into account team attributes, settings for approvals, and automation of task phases followed through accordingly).
Regarding 4, Fernandez further discloses: wherein output a number of the applications for the project at a present time ([0022-0023] a plurality of time-based aspects may be viewable, such as bid hours (that is, an estimate of the person-hours required for a project, that may be used to bid on the project); actual hours (that is, person-hours actually expended on the project); and a forecast of the time remaining by the calendar to complete the project. Updates can be provided periodically, such as at the end of every day, or in real time).
Regarding 5, Fernandez further discloses: wherein give predetermined points determined in advance for each project to the user who participates in the project, when the project is established. ([0037-0038] The system may generate a fragmentation index [points] that takes into account the fragmentation of tasks, and operate to influence the scheduling of tasks, and a maximum allowable fragmentation index to an individual staff member who uses task reporting or task tracking reporting).
Regarding 6, Fernandez further discloses: propose participation in another project when the project is not established ([0055] The system may reassign tasks to levelize workloads of staff members working on a project. Such reassignment or recommendation may be based on an analysis of staff member efficiencies, known skill sets. Reassignments may be made or recommended based on known or unexpected interruptions in a staff member's schedule).
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s 101 argument is essentially without merit since it merely emphasizes that because the claims are amended it satisfies the requires of 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. No evidence has been presented for any valid argument other than asserting that the claims have been amended, thus Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Regarding the prior art rejection, Applicant’s amendment has been considered however is unpersuasive since the arguments are based on the new amendments and updated prior art has been provided for the newly amended claim language.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitate new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The relevant prior art made of record not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the current and/or previous PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. 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.
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. Examiner interviews can be requested by telephone or are available using the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, LYNDA JASMIN, can be reached at (571) 272-6782 for any urgent matter that needs immediate attention. Additional information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the USPTO Patent Center. For more information about the USPTO Patent Center, please access https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ The Patent Center is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications and can be contacted for questions at 1-866-217-9197 or 571-272-4100.
/LAURA YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629