DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to claims filed 30 June 2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 June 2023 and 26 August 2026 are being considered by the Examiner.
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 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a process (an act, or series of acts or steps), a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), and a manufacture (an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1). The claims recite a method (process), apparatus and system, however, the claim(s) recite(s) analyzing task and project parameters to determine the subset of results that meet a threshold which is an abstract idea of organizing human activities as well as performing computations in accordance with a mathematical formula on that data.
The limitations of “setting... task management parameters and project management parameters; utilizing...a queuing theory calculator for a task management and a project management based on various types of multi-dimensional visualization; generating...a plurality of results of the task management and the project management based on utilizing the queuing theory calculator; analyzing...the plurality of results with at least one machine learning algorithm; outputting...a multi-dimensional analysis of the plurality of results based on the analysis of the plurality of results with the at least one machine learning algorithm; analyzing...the plurality of results using a magic square analysis; comparing...the plurality of results with a plurality of requirements based on the analysis of the plurality of results with the at least one machine learning algorithm and the analysis of the plurality of results using the magic square analysis; and determining...a subset of the plurality of results that meet a threshold of a comparison of the requirements based on the comparing of the plurality of results with the requirements,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activities--fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and/or mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components (Step 2A Prong 1). That is, other than reciting “by a processor set,” (or “A computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media having program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable to:” in claim 12 or “A system comprising: a processor set, one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable to:” in claim 18) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from the methods of organizing human interactions grouping or from the mathematical concept grouping. For example, but for the “by a processor set,” (or “A computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media having program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable to:” in claim 12 or “A system comprising: a processor set, one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable to:” in claim 18) language, “setting/set,” “utilizing/utilize,” “generating/generate,” “outputting/output,” “analyzing/analyze,” “comparing/compare,” and “determining/determine”” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually using some mathematical concepts to analyze tasks and projects and comparing to the threshold which is a business relation/fundamental economic practice/commercial or legal interaction/managing personal behavior or mathematical concept of analyzing and comparing different results from different mathematical concepts (comparison of results of machine learning and magic square). However, if possible, the Examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, the limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mathematical concept, while some of the limitations may be performed in the mind after certain limitations are performed, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES). Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two). In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor set (claim 1), A computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media having program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable to (claim 12), and A system comprising: a processor set, one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable to:(claim 18) to perform the steps. The processor, computer program product, and system the steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of “machine learning algorithm” in the limitations also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “machine learning algorithm” limits the identified judicial exceptions, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claim does not include a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), the combination of additional elements of using a processor set, computer program product and system to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim. As such, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 2, 6, 8-11, and 13 recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further limiting the data (parameters, constraints, or time) which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 12, and 18, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 3-4 14-15, and 19-20 recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further limiting the mathematical concepts previously identified which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 12, and 18, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 5, 7, 16, and 17 recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further limiting how the output is displayed (3D or 4D) which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 12, and 18, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 1-20 are therefore not eligible subject matter, even when considered as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (additional art can be located on the PTO-892):
Krebs et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0349049) Methods and systems for estimating process capacity.
Bauters et al. (US PG Pub. 2009/0024432) Business Process Management System And Method.
Jambor-Sadeghi (US PG Pub. 2015/0006238) Software With Improved View Of Business Process
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ANDREW B WHITAKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-
automated- interview-request-air-form
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights