DETAILED ACTIONContinued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 15, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on December 15, 2025 has been entered. The following has occurred: Claim 1 has been amended; Claims 20 and 21 have been canceled; and Claim 22 has been added.
Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 14-19, and 22 are pending.
Response to Amendment
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection has been added in light of the amendment.
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, 2, 4-12, 14-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03)
In the present application, claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-21 are directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong one.
Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04)
The limitations of independent claim 1 have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. The bold language of claim 1 recites an abstract idea as explained further below:
creates a project chatroom associated with a project, creates at least one of a note object, a multimedia file object, and an attachment file associated with a work of the project in the project chatroom,
creates at least one of a note object, a multimedia file object, and an attachment file associated with a work of the project in the project chatroom,
creates a work object associated with the note object, the multimedia file object, or the attachment file, and including a work creator, a work processor, and a work progress state representing a progress state for each work processing step, and
creates a note or the note object including a container of the work object associated with the note, wherein when the work object is created through a note message thread associated with the note, the note is converted into the note object,
includes a tree structure association between a macro management block and a micro management block, and
update the tree structure by inserting the work object into the micro management block based on the creation of the work object,
receive a request for generating a new work object associated with a corresponding note object;
generate the work object based on work information included in a request received from a user terminal;
add the generated work object as a message object to a work message thread of the project chatroom;
update the work progress state in a work processing diagram by reflecting a request by one of the work creator and the work processor and a response by an other of the work creator and the work processor;
perform a progress of the work object in a manner of updating a work message thread associated with the work object;
detect at least one work object that satisfies a pre-set remind condition from a set of the work objects;
generate a remind message associated with each of the detected work objects; and
provide the generated remind message to the user terminal associated with a user designated as the work processor in each work object according to a specific repetition standard, wherein the work progress state includes at least one of new, doing, done, or confirm, and wherein new indicates a state in which the work object is newly created, doing indicates a state in which the work processor is processing the work object, done indicates a state in which the work processor has completed the work object and waits for interaction with work completion from the work creator, and confirm indicates a state in which the work creator confirmed the completed work object of the work processor.
(Broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, “block” is interpreted to be file of information that is stored (i.e., include in storage), see app. specification para. [0056] and [0064])
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of project information management.
The limitations above recite steps a process of steps that can be reasonably performed as mental activity of a person. For example, a work creator or manager (as described in the applicant’s specification in [0112] is human performing actions) can create project chatroom (i.e., physical location with bulletin board) with tasks, note, and files; create work progress tracker; convert message note to tasks (work objects); update work progress in diagram, identify if task satisfies pre-set remind condition, and generate and provide remind message;
The limitations above suggest a process similar to collecting information (e.g., creating project chatroom and collecting note, note object, work object, files, multimedia and attachment files), analyzing (e.g., determining whether work object satisfies remind condition) the information and presenting the information. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of collecting information and analyzing the collected information, and the steps involved human judgements, observations, and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Additionally and alternatively, the same claim limitations above recite a process for managing (e.g., creating, updating, adding, and maintaining) a project or work collaboration, which have been commonly practiced by project manager for managing work project and scheduling, for hundreds of years before the invention and the use of computer system. Therefore, the claims recite a practice of managing personal behavior or relationships or interaction between people including following rules or instructions for managing work project in meeting, which the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Accordingly, the above-mentioned limitations are considered as a single abstract idea, therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two.
Step 2A. prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer.
The additional elements considered include: “hierarchical project management apparatus comprising: a memory; and a processor electrically connected to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to:”, “memory”, “wherein the processor is further configured to”, “from a user terminal through a work message thread interface that visualizes a work message thread in a project management messaging agent which is installed on the user terminal”, and “user terminal”.
The additional element of a system comprising generic computer elements are found to recite mere instructions to apply a generic computer and technology to execute the method in the recited claim limitations, as merely using a computer to transmit, manipulate, and display information is not an improvement to a technology or technical field. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements - the use of “apparatus comprising: a memory; and a processor electrically connected to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to:”, “memory”, “wherein the processor is further configured to”, “from a user terminal through a work message thread interface that visualizes a work message thread in a project management messaging agent which is installed on the user terminal”, and “user terminal”, “memory”, and “wherein the processor is further configured” to create, include, receive, update, convert, request, generate, analyze (i.e., detect if satisfies condition), and provide information. The computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification at least at paragraphs [0053]-[0057] and Figures 1 and 2) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
That is, the function of limitations [A]-[N] are steps of 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 as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve a computer or other technology, do not transform a particular article, do not recite more than a general link to a computer, and do not invoke the computer in any meaningful way; the general computer is effectively part of the preamble instruction to “apply” the exception by the computer. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bold portions of the limitations recited above, were all considered to be an abstract idea in Step2A-Prong Two. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations of [A]-[N] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept for project management. Thus, viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus are ineligible.
Dependent claim 2, the claim recites another abstract step of using same additional element of processor, at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of adding information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 4, the claim recites limitation that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim 1. The claim further recites additional descriptive information for the number of created note objects, which does not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The further details of the claim limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technology environment. The additional step of providing a note object recommendation message 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, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 5, the claim recites another abstract step of using same additional element of processor, at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of determining information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The functioning step of the claim also falls under the category of “Mental Processes” which is concepts performable in the human mind. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 6, the claim recites another abstract step of using same additional element of processor, at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of analyzing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The functioning step of the claim also falls under the category of “Mental Processes” which is concepts performable in the human mind. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 7, the claim recites another abstract step of using same additional element of processor, at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of evaluating information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The functioning step of the claim also falls under the category of “Mental Processes” which is concepts performable in the human mind. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 8, the claim recites another abstract step of using same additional element of processor, at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of granting and calculating information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The functioning step of the claim also falls under the category of “Mental Processes” which is concepts performable in the human mind. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 9, the claim recites another abstract step of using same additional element of processor, at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of updating information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The functioning step of the claim also falls under the category of “Mental Processes” which is concepts performable in the human mind. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claim 10, the claim recites another abstract step of using same additional element of processor, at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of analyzing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The functioning step of the claim also falls under the category of “Mental Processes” which is concepts performable in the human mind. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 11, the claim recites another abstract step of using same additional element of processor, at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of modifying and adding/providing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 12, the claim recites another abstract step of using same additional element of processor, at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of notifying/providing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 14 and 19, the claims recite another abstract step of using same additional element of processor, at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of creating information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claim 15, the claim recites another abstract step of using same additional element of processor, at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of analyzing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 16, the claim recites another abstract step of using same additional element of processor, at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of performing, updating, and evaluating information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 17, the claim recites another abstract step of using same additional element of processor, at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of providing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim 18, the claim recites another abstract step of using same additional element of processor, at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions of calculating information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is ineligible.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-12, 14-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 11, 12, 14-17, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieboldt (US 20130238510 A1, hereinafter “Wieboldt”) in view of Ahlgren et al. (US 20140372536 A1, hereinafter “Ahlgren”).
Claim 1, Wieboldt discloses
a hierarchical project management apparatus (Abstract and para. [0023]-[0025]) comprising:
a memory (para. [0021], [0025]); and
a processor electrically connected to the memory (para. [0025]), wherein the processor is configured to:
create a project chatroom associated with a project (Abstract, claim 1, para. [0020], [0038], [0041], [0043] disclosing the creating and providing of a workspace including chat room for project management with tasks and deliverables. The project communication toolbox of Wieboldt is representative of project chatroom);
create at least one of a note object, a multimedia file object, and an attachment file associated with a work of the project in the project chatroom (Note: informative decision in Ex parte Jung says that the plain meaning of "at least one of A and B" is the conjunctive unless the record indicates otherwise (i.e., the plain meaning of this claim recitation is "at least one of A and at least one of B.") Ex parte Jung, 2016-008290 (PTAB Mar. 22, 2017). If the applicant intends to claim an optional list for one of the note object, a multimedia file object, or attachment file, then the office suggests the claim to recite “at least one of a note object, a multimedia file object, or an attachment file” (bold emphasis included). For the purpose of examination, the office interprets the claim to request all of the listed “a note object, a multimedia file object, and an attachment file associated with a work of the project in the project chatroom” to be created. Wieboldt, para. [0029]-[0031], [0034], and [0041] disclosing dashboard or task-specific workspaces show and alert the user to tasks and area of responsibility that requires attention with color status indicators, calendar, metadata associated with documents, e-mail attachments, and photographs, to solve the difficulty indicated in para. [0005], “with managing all of that information is that it is generated in multiple formats by multiple, different applications. In a modern business, employees may communicate via e-mail, instant message, text message, and voice mail. Additionally, documents, photographs, and media files are often worked on collaboratively. Each form of communication and work may involve different applications and different file or information formats.”);
create a work object associated with the note object, the multimedia file object, or the attachment file (Wieboldt, para. [0029]-[0031], [0034], and [0041] disclosing creating dashboard or task-specific workspaces with the task or deliverables that shows color status indicators, calendar, metadata associated with documents, e-mail attachments, and photographs), and including a work creator (para. [0036] and [0052], “control members”), a work processor (para. [0035]-[0036], [0039], and [0041] team member handling the task), and a work progress state representing a progress state for each work processing step (In Abtract and para. [0026] discloses activity frame automatically associates sets of metadata with data generated by application programs. The application frame may take the form of a virtual workspace or set of workspaces, each workspace associated with its own set of metadata, such that everything a user does, receives, or acts on while in that workspace is associated with the workspace's set of metadata. In para. [0020] discloses the metadata include the user who created the data (which is the work creator), the data and time, and team members working on the project (which are the work processors) and the status of tasks (which is the work progress state). In para. [0030]-[0031], [0043] disclosing status indicator of the task and task completion); and
create a note or the note object including a container of the work object associated with the note (Abstract and para. [0028]-[0032] disclosing dashboard including tasks and responsibilities which is representative of note object including a note or a container of the work object associated with the note),
wherein, when the work object is created through a note message thread associated with the note, the note is converted into the note object (In according to the disclosure provided in the applicant’s remarks, in para. [0075] and [0088], the office interprets “the note is converted into the note object” is result of creating the work object from a note message thread. In Fig. 3 and para. [0038]-[0039] disclosing a communication toolbox which allows the users to initiate communications such as email and chat (which is representative of note message thread associated with the note) to create task or project to a specific person or to the entire team),
wherein the memory includes a tree structure association between a macro management block and a micro management block (Claim 7 and para. [0037] discloses the higher and lower level in the hierarchical interface and workspaces of the system),
wherein the processor (para. [0025]) is further configured to:
update the tree structure by inserting the work object into the micro management block based on the creation of the work object (Para. [0026] and claim 6 discloses the system automatically stores the set of metadata associated with the first virtual workspace in associated with data generated. By automatically linking the new data to the lower-level hierarchy (micro block) the system functionally inserts the object into the tree structure upon creation, see para. [0037], [0044]);
receive a request for generating a new work object associated with a corresponding note object from a user terminal in a project management messaging agent which is installed on the user terminal (Wiebold Claim 1 and para. [0026] disclose the system receives and acts upon each piece of data generated, received, or act upon within a workspace, which is receiving a request for generating a metadata encoded work object in the project hierarchy. In Abstract and para. [0025], [0033], [0042] discloses the visualizing of work message on the interface of mobile device via communication program);
generate the work object based on work information included in a request received from a user terminal (para. [0026] and Claim 1 disclose the system creates data and metadata based on data generated, received, or acted upon by the user);
update the work progress state in a work processing diagram by reflecting a request by one of the work creator and the work processor and a response by an other of the work creator and the work processor (Wieboldt para. [0029]-[0030] describes dashboard reflects work progress for tasks where coloring indicates task completion and areas that requires attention. In para. [0035] describes a task status indicator (visual diagram of the work) that shows the nature of the deliverable and the deadline);
detect at least one work object that satisfies a pre-set remind condition from a set of the work objects (Wieboldt, para. [0030] teaches “the task-specific workspaces 42, are adapted to show and alert the user to tasks and areas of responsibility that require attention.” “System 10 may determine that a task or area of responsibility requires attention either automatically, based on metadata associated with documents or tasks in that area of responsibility (e.g., upcoming due date that has not been completed, an overdue task or deliverable, etc.)” This discloses the detecting of upcoming or overdue task that are the work objects within the set of project data management);
However, Wieboldt fails to disclose (italic emphasis),
receive a request for generating a new work object associated with a corresponding note object from a user terminal through a work message thread interface that visualizes a work message thread in a project management messaging agent which is installed on the user terminal
add the generated work object as a message object to a work message thread of the project chatroom;
perform a progress of the work object in a manner of updating a work message thread associated with the work object;
generate a remind message associated with each of the detected work objects; and
provide the generated remind message to the user terminal associated with a user designated as the work processor in each work object according to a specific repetition standard,
wherein the work progress state includes at least one of new, doing, done, or confirm, and wherein new indicates a state in which the work object is newly created, doing indicates a state in which the work processor is processing the work object, done indicates a state in which the work processor has completed the work object and waits for interaction with work completion from the work creator, and confirm indicates a state in which the work creator confirmed the completed work object of the work processor.
Nonetheless, Ahlgren is in the same field of system and method for online collaborative work using workspaces over network, which specifically teaches,
wherein the memory includes a tree structure association between a macro management block and a micro management block (Ahlgren para. [0161] teaches the workspace objects are organized into a domain hierarchy representing the organizational structure of the users (which represents macro management block) and an initiative hierarchy representing the process structures for accomplishing goals (which representing micro management block). The domain hierarchy and the initiatives hierarchy provide the users two views of the workspace objects without duplicating resources, thereby establishing the tree structure association between the macro and micro management block.),
receive a request for generating a new work object associated with a corresponding note object from a user terminal through a work message thread interface that visualizes a work message thread in a project management messaging agent which is installed on the user terminal (Ahlgren in para. [0071] and [0079] teaches the user interact with the system through a navigation GUI to initiate a discussion in-context to the resource’s objective on-line, asynchronous, threaded chat boards, which is a work message thread interface that visualizes a work message thread);
add the generated work object as a message object to a work message thread of the project chatroom (para. [0079] and [0209]);
perform a progress of the work object in a manner of updating a work message thread associated with the work object (para. [0015], [0073], [0079] teaches asynchronous, threaded chat boards that provide users a place to exchange questions, opinions, and remarks in relation to the resource topic (work object). Which specifically teaches users can initiate a discussion in-context to the resource’s objective and either receives answers to the discussed topic or reply to a discussion topic started by another user);
generate a remind message associated with each of the detected work objects (Ahlgren: para. [0084] and [0200] disclosing the messaging center that displays alerts generated by the system and message to specific users based on change to the agency project or tasks that will be marked as an update and displayed); and
provide the generated remind message to the user terminal associated with a user designated as the work processor in each work object according to a specific repetition standard (Ahlgren para. [0084] teaches alert in email options to users. In para. [0275] teaches the messaging center is updated frequently by the user, and para. [0312] teaches the “re-index timeout” and “frequency of re-indexing” which is repetition standard),
wherein the work progress state includes at least one of new, doing, done, or confirm, and wherein new indicates a state in which the work object is newly created, doing indicates a state in which the work processor is processing the work object, done indicates a state in which the work processor has completed the work object and waits for interaction with work completion from the work creator, and confirm indicates a state in which the work creator confirmed the completed work object of the work processor (Para. [0072] and [0204] teaches creation of new resource object from a template; para. [0075] teaches doing and done; para. [0081] teaches confirm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the project and document management system and virtual workspaces of Wieboldt to include the above-mentioned features as taught by Ahlgren for the motivation of providing an improved system for collaborative work that can track, schedule, and alert work adapted to user’s needs (para. [0008]-[0016]).
Claim 2, the combination of Wieboldt and Ahlgren makes obvious of the hierarchical project management apparatus of claim 1. Wieboldt further discloses wherein the processor adds the note object to the project chatroom as an independent note message directly accessible in the project chatroom and distinguished from a text message or a media message to create the note object (para. [0041] and [0043]).
Claim 4, the combination of Wieboldt and Ahlgren makes obvious of the hierarchical project management apparatus of claim 1. Ahlgren further teaches wherein when the number of created note objects associated with the project chatroom is equal to or less than a predetermined criterion, the processor provides a note object recommendation message that recommends creation of a new note object associated with the project chatroom through the project chatroom (Para. [0209]-[0220] teaches the recommendation of creating new object through the project chat. Para. [0222], [0275], and [0312] teaches the updating of automatic information or messages in group at frequency of predetermined criterion of re-indexing time).
The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Wieboldt with/and the teachings of Ahlgren are presented in the examining of independent claim 1 and incorporated herein.
Claim 5, the combination of Wieboldt and Ahlgren make obvious of the hierarchical project management apparatus of claim 4. Ahlgren further teaches,
wherein the processor determines whether to provide the note object recommendation message by reflecting a criterion number of note objects designated by a project creator to be proportional for each period from a project creation date (Para. [0209]-[0220] teaches the recommendation of creating new object through the project chat. Para. [0222], [0275], and [0312] teaches the updating of automatic information or messages in group at frequency of specific criterion of re-indexing time).
The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Wieboldt with/and the teachings of Ahlgren are presented in the examining of independent claim 1 and incorporated herein.
Claim 6, the combination of Wieboldt and Ahlgren make obvious of the hierarchical project management apparatus of claim 1. Wieboldt further discloses,
wherein the processor analyzes a registration number and a project association for at least one of the note object, the multimedia file object, and the attachment file associated with the project chatroom to create project performance information analyzed in time series (para. [0042] disclosing project identifier associated with the related workspaces including the metadata. See example provided in TABLE 1 in para. [0055]. In para. [0029]-[0031], [0034], and [0041] disclosing the task or deliverables that shows color status indicators, calendar, metadata associated with documents, e-mail attachments, and photographs which is a project association for at least one of the note object, the multimedia file object, and the attachment file associated with the project chatroom to create project performance information analyzed in time series).
Claim 7, the combination of Wieboldt and Ahlgren make obvious of the hierarchical project management apparatus of claim 1. Wieboldt further discloses,
wherein the processor evaluates the project through a work evaluation access right of a super manager (para. [0028] disclosing high-level executive managers and lower-level managers. In para. [0036] disclosing control members that have control over projects or tasks and the ability to approve or reject proposed due data, deliverables, etc.).
Claim 11, the combination of Wieboldt and Ahlgren make obvious of the hierarchical project management apparatus of claim 1. Wieboldt further discloses,
wherein when note contents in at least one note object are modified, the processor adds a notification message including change information and an access link for accessing the note object to the project chatroom (para. [0034] providing links to most recent document edits, e-mail attachment or other most recent work product).
Claim 12, the combination of Wieboldt and Ahlgren make obvious of the hierarchical project management apparatus of claim 11. Wieboldt further discloses,
wherein the processor notifies a message to participants whenever the note object in the project chatroom is updated (para. [0034]).
Claim 14, the combination of Wieboldt and Ahlgren make obvious of the hierarchical project management apparatus of claim 1. Wieboldt further discloses,
wherein when at least one of a multimedia file object and an attachment file dependently associated with the project chatroom through the project chatroom is created, the processor adds the created one to the project chatroom as a media message or an attachment file message (para. [0034] and [0052])
Claim 15, the combination of Wieboldt and Ahlgren make obvious of the hierarchical project management apparatus of claim 1. Wieboldt further discloses,
wherein when an analysis request for a note object and a work object associated with a project chatroom participated by a user is received, the processor performs an analysis for a note object belonging to each project and a work object belonging to the note object (para. [0038] disclosing the search function which is analysis for a note object belong to each project and a work object belonging to the note object).
Claim 16, the combination of Wieboldt and Ahlgren make obvious of the hierarchical project management apparatus of claim 1. Wieboldt further discloses,
wherein the processor
performs a progress of the work object (para. [0030]-[0031], [0043] disclosing status indicator of the task and task completion),
updates a work progress state of the work object through a work object related response implemented with a response relationship between the work creator and the work processor (para. [0029]-[0031], [0034], and [0041] disclosing dashboard or task-specific workspaces show and alert the user to tasks and area of responsibility that requires attention from a higher-level reviewer to user responsible),
evaluates the work object through a work evaluation access right of the work creator (para. [0028] disclosing high-level executive managers and lower-level managers. In para. [0036] disclosing control members that have control over projects or tasks and the ability to approve or reject proposed due data, deliverables, etc.), and
includes a work point which is a result of evaluating the work object in the work object (para. [0020], [0030] and [0031] disclosing the dashboard including the progress status of the task has not been completed with higher priority and task that has been completed).
Claim 17, the combination of Wieboldt and Ahlgren make obvious of the hierarchical project management apparatus of claim 1. Wieboldt further discloses,
wherein the processor provides a remind message that is associated with the work object through the project chatroom and requests completion of the work progress state according to a specific repetition criterion until the work progress state is completed (para. [0030]-[0031] disclosing the alerting the user to the task with due date and status indicator. Wieboldt, para. [0030] disclosing “the task-specific workspaces 42, are adapted to show and alert the user to tasks and areas of responsibility that require attention.” “System 10 may determine that a task or area of responsibility requires attention either automatically, based on metadata associated with documents or tasks in that area of responsibility (e.g., upcoming due date that has not been completed, an overdue task or deliverable, etc.)” This discloses the detecting of upcoming or overdue task that are the work objects within the set of project data management).
While alerting once can be considered specific repetition criterion, Ahlgren in para. [0084] teaches alert in email options to users. In para. [0275] teaches the messaging center is updated frequently by the user, and para. [0312] teaches the “re-index timeout” and “frequency of re-indexing” which teaches repetition standard).
The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Wieboldt with/and the teachings of Ahlgren are presented in the examining of independent claim 1 and incorporated herein.
Claim 22, the combination of Wieboldt and Ahlgren make obvious of the hierarchical project management apparatus of claim 1. Wieboldt further discloses,
determine whether or not a difference in days until a finish date according to the work progress state of the work object satisfies a specific condition to determine whether the remind message is urgent (para. [0030] discloses “determine that a task or area of responsibility requires attention either automatically, based on metadata associated with documents or tasks in that area of responsibility (e.g., upcoming due date that has not been completed, an overdue task or deliverable, etc.)” The identifying if a task requires attention is required based on upcoming due date is is determining urgency based on deadlines).
Ahlgren teaches
increase a frequency of providing the remind message of the corresponding work object based on a determination that the remind message is urgent (para. [0084] teaches displays alerts generated by the system and messages to specific users. In para. [0312] teaches the system administrator can set the frequency of re-indexing for system operations).
The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Wieboldt with/and the teachings of Ahlgren are presented in the examining of independent claim 1 and incorporated herein.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieboldt (US 20130238510 A1, hereinafter “Wieboldt”), in view of Ahlgren et al. (US 20140372536 A1, hereinafter “Ahlgren”), and further in view of Dreimann et al. (US 20070255583 A1, hereinafter “Dreimann”).
Claim 8, the combination of Wieboldt and Ahlgren make obvious of the hierarchical project management apparatus of claim 1.
However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the processor
grants a qualitative project evaluation point of the project based on an evaluation received from a user terminal associated with the super manager,
calculates a quantitative project evaluation point of the project based on a number of created note objects associated with the project, a number of created work objects created through a corresponding note object, a processing number and a processing period of work objects created through the note object, and
calculates a total evaluation point of the project based on the qualitative project evaluation point and the quantitative project evaluation point.
Nonetheless, Dreimann is directed to a method for analyzing risks in a technical project for developing or manufacturing a technical system or technical components or a technical process, which specifically teaches:
wherein the processor grants a qualitative project evaluation point of the project based on an evaluation received from a user terminal associated with the super manager, calculates a quantitative project evaluation point of the project based on a number of created note objects associated with the project, a number of created work objects created through a corresponding note object, a processing number and a processing period of work objects created through the note object, and calculates a total evaluation point of the project based on the qualitative project evaluation point and the quantitative project evaluation point (Abstract, Claims 1-3, 5, 12-14, 19-25, and para. [0006]-[0017], [0037]-[0041], [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to include the features of granting a qualitative project evaluation point of the project; calculating a qualitative project evaluation point of the project; and calculating a total evaluation point of the project based on the qualitative project evaluation point and the quantitative project evaluation point as taught by Dreimann with the project and document management system and virtual workspaces of Wieboldt for the motivation of providing an improved system and method of evaluating the risks in project with consideration of both qualitative and quantitative evaluation (para. [0002]-[0005]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieboldt (US 20130238510 A1, hereinafter “Wieboldt”), in view of Ahlgren et al. (US 20140372536 A1, hereinafter “Ahlgren”), in view of Dreimann et al. (US 20070255583 A1, hereinafter “Dreimann”) and further in view of Blass et al. (US 20060058948 A1, hereinafter “Blass”).
Claim 9, the combination of Wieboldt, Ahlgren, and Dreimann make obvious of the hierarchical project management apparatus of claim 8.
Dreiman teaches the calculating and updating of the quantitative project point (para. [0006]-[0017], [0037]-[0041], [0043]).
However, the combination fails to expressly teach,
wherein the processor updates the quantitative project evaluation point at a specific period until the project ends, and selects a specific project activity for enhancing the quantitative project evaluation point and recommends the selected specific project activity through the project chatroom.
However, Blass is directed to an organization system using location information, possibly in conjunction with time-based information for tasks, with the purpose of optimizing user travel distance and/or time to complete specified tasks, which specifically teaches:
wherein the processor updates the quantitative project evaluation point at a specific period until the project ends, and selects a specific project activity for enhancing the quantitative project evaluation point and recommends the selected specific project activity through the project chatroom (Abstract, para. [0105], [0114] teaching the calculation of actual time to complete user task based on alert message and time spent at site to complete task).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to include the calculation of work response speed as taught by Blass with the with the project and document management system and virtual workspaces of Wieboldt for the motivation of providing an improved and effective system and method of task management and time optimization.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieboldt (US 20130238510 A1, hereinafter “Wieboldt”), in view of Ahlgren et al. (US 20140372536 A1, hereinafter “Ahlgren”), and further in view of Blass et al. (US 20060058948 A1, hereinafter “Blass”).
Claim 18, the combination of Wieboldt, Ahlgren, and Dreimann make obvious of the hierarchical project management apparatus of claim 17. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the processor calculates a work response speed based on the number of providing times of the provided remind message and includes the calculated work response speed in a work point of the work object.
However, Blass is directed to an organization system using location information, possibly in conjunction with time-based information for tasks, with the purpose of optimizing user travel distance and/or time to complete specified tasks, which specifically teaches:
wherein the processor calculates a work response speed based on the number of providing times of the provided remind message and includes the calculated response speed in a work point of the work object (Abstract, para. [0105], [0114] teaching the calculation of actual time to complete user task based on alert message and time spent at site to complete task).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to include the calculation of work response speed as taught by Blass with the with the project and document management system and virtual workspaces of Wieboldt for the motivation of providing an improved and effective system and method of task management and time optimization.
Allowable Subject Matter over Prior Art
Claim 10 is allowable over prior art.
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected based claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the based claim and any intervening claims.
Relevant Prior Art found:
Hanson et al. (US 20100070881 A1) is directed to a project facilitation and collaboration (PFC) service enable a user to access a PFC user interface. The PFC user interface enables the user to create a project and define and modify a membership for the project. The user interface also enables the user to perform, within the confines of the user interface, varied project activities including remotely or locally accessing asynchronous communication objects pertaining to the project, accessing documents and other media objects associated with the project, and initiating synchronous and asynchronous communications with members of the project.
Pratley et al. (US 20100005398 A1) is directed methods, systems, and apparatus are provided for viewing and managing collaboration data from within the context of a shared electronic document. A document editing pane is displayed for editing the shared document. In conjunction with the document editing pane, a collaboration pane is displayed for displaying the collaboration data. Through the collaboration pane, collaboration data such as the identities of one or more collaborators, task, documents, links and other information may be displayed. Actions may also be performed with respect to any aspect of the collaboration data through the collaboration pane.
Cullen et al. (US 20060190391 A1) is directed to a project-work administrative management method includes receiving, from a buyer, project-administration configurations, storing transactional project work data relating to project work to be performed for the buyer by a supplier, receiving, from the buyer, configuration of project statement-of-work (SOW) records, processing a project change in plan/scope record set of the buyer, processing a project change in plan/scope record set of the supplier, and creating an integrated project change in plan/scope record set using the record set of the buyer and the record set of the supplier.
Gunning et al. (US 20090133027 A1) is directed to a project management task prioritization system is provided to refine the prioritization factors for tasks in a project based on changes to the order of performing the tasks. The initial proposed order for performing the tasks is provided by the system to the person responsible for the task in a graphical format that allows the person to drag and drop the tasks, adjusting the order of the tasks to their preferred order. A neural network comparator is used to compare the task prioritization factors associated with each pair of tasks that are altered in order to determine a relative priority. The neural network system updates the task prioritization factors based on the changes in order the tasks are to be performed.
Wescott (US 20030036942 A1) is directed to a system for controlling and evaluating a regulatory submission project seeking approval of the sale of an item. A set of templates defining milestones and times based on qualitative assessments of the item are established in a computer. A relative quantitative value of completing a milestone is then established. Information is entered into a database about past and ongoing evaluations of the item, including tests performed on the item. A determination is made as to whether a milestone has been achieved on time. If a milestone has not been achieved on time, the relative loss in value to the sales of the item based on the relative quantitative value of completing the milestone is calculated. The status of the evaluation is then reported.
Raghavan et al (US 20140372525 A1) is directed to a system and method of notifications delivered to a user based in part on a user's current context. Para. [0018] teaching notification in response of state change of even such as updating event as complete.
Beaven et al. (US 20040186762 A1) is directed to system for performing collaborative tasks which permits collaborators to determine the form of a model of the collaborative work, to modify the model in the course of the collaborative work, and to use the model to access information related to the collaborative work. A graphical user interface permits collaborators to view the model and the information accessible via the model in various ways as well as to modify the model and the information. Collaborators are organized into groups and a collaborator's group membership determines how the collaborator may access and modify the model and the related information. The information related to the collaborative work includes documents, discussions, email, reminders, and alerts. In a disclosed embodiment of the system, the model is made up of model entities which belong to hierarchies. A model entity may be a member of more than one hierarchy and the different hierarchies are used to provide different views of the model.
Culver et al. (US 20120110087 A1) is directed to a method for enabling collaboration between individuals to design, construct and maintain a building. The method comprises providing a network based computer system including at least one server and multiple clients. The multiple clients allow respective individuals to interact with the server. The server includes a machine-readable storage, which is encoded with software for execution by a CPU for allowing individuals at the respective clients to create, execute and manage projects associated with at least one of a design phase, construction phase and maintenance phase of the building.
Fang Chen, J. F. Nunamaker, N. C. Romano and R. O. Briggs, "A collaborative project management architecture," 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the, Big Island, HI, USA, 2003, pp. 12 pp.-, doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2003.1173655. teaching the collaborative project management architecture for tracking project work processes and sharing information among project contributors.
Specifically, the combination of the above references does not explicitly teach the limitation, wherein the processor analyzes a calculation criterion of the quantitative project point to determine one of creation of a new note object, creation of a new work object associated with a pre-created note object, rapid processing of a pre-created work object, and enhancement of a message processing quantity processed in the project chatroom as the specific project activity (i.e. in the particular manner it is claimed in the context of the whole claim is not disclosed, taught or suggested in the prior art(s).).
Examiner notes that the underlined limitations above, in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claim are found to be allowable over the prior art of record.
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor fairly and reasonably teach the limitation of claim 10.
Examiner notes that while applicant has overcome the art of record, the application is not in condition for allowance, given the outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
The applicant’s remarks are fully considered, however, they are found to be unpersuasive.
Regarding applicant's arguments concerning Step 2A Prong Two and/or a technical improvement as referenced in Enfish, McRO, and/or Ex Parte Desjardins, examiner notes that the additional elements, which form the basis of this determination, are nothing more than generic computing elements, used in their ordinary capacity, to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. Whether viewed alone or in combination, this is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical application and/or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The asserted technical improvement recited on page 17 of the remarks are not reflected in the claims, therefore are found unpersuasive.
Thus, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, Nathan C Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/WENREN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626