Claims 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 .
Claims 1-15 are rejected in this Non-Final Office Action.
Objections
Claim 1 recites “work flow management directylon” in which the bolded term is a typographical error. Correction is required.
Also claim 2 recites “inbuilt” which is another typographical error. Correction is required and Applicant is encouraged to proof-read the claims for typographical errors.
Claim 5 contains the numerical number “100” after system, correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 3 & 15 contain the trademark/trade names “Jira, Slack, Zendesk, and the like.” Claim 4 recites “MS teams, Google meet…gmail.”
Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods or product associated with the trademark or trade name. Furthermore, “and the like” is open-ended without any definite boundary, accordingly the claims are indefinite. Correction is required.
Claim 1 recites provide “conditional access” wherein the term conditional is vague and indefinite since it is unclear what constitutes “conditional.” Correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “accession by authentication” which is indefinite since it unclear what constitutes this term and the boundaries of what constitutes accession via authentication is vague. Claim 5 recites “wherein the platform is configured to collaborate” however it is unclear what constitutes a platform collaborating. Users can collaborate, not a single platform collaborating with itself. Claim 5 also recites ”selectively enabled by the first user between the customer and vendor depending on level of access provided by the user” which is indefinite since it is unclear what constitutes the boundary of selectively enabled depending on any level of access. Correction is required. All dependent claims depending on claims 1 and 5 are also rejected for the same reasoning and rationale.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1-15 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph for the following reasoning:
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1 and 5:
a communication collaboration module, data presentation module…data retrieving module…data notification module;
presentation by a presentation module;
collaboration by a collaborating module;
The specification mentions “The user facing project management server 106 comprises, a processor 121, database or memory 122, a communication collaboration module 120, a communication repository 124, data presentation module 126, data retrieving module 127, data notification module 128 and computer readable instructions which when executed by the processor 121” generically.
Since the claim limitation(s) have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the Specification for this application does not appear to link any sufficient corresponding structure to any of the various “parts” placeholder terms underlined above. Dependent claims are also interpreted as claims 1 and 5 for the same reasons above. If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-15 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 1-15 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 claims 1 and 5 for the following abstract features, is underlined below which recite the following claim limitations, as an abstract idea.
Claim 1. Collaborative user facing project management, comprising: a service provider with a user facing project management; one or more user comprising vendor and associated parties; wherein the user facing project management comprises a communication collaboration, data presentation, data retrieving, data notification, instructions:
on boards users comprising vendors and associated third party entities, provides a communicable linkage by the communication collaboration module adapted to map information flow between service provider, vendors, and third parties associated with vendors, integrates the communication and work flow management of the users, and
the data presentation adapted to provide conditional access to data mapped and identified by the communication collaboration and display for exchange between vendor, and third parties, to access, manage and implement projects, project related communication and work flow management.
Claim 5. A collaborative user facing project management comprising steps: a. subscribing by a first user to a user facing service provider and accession by authentication; b. connecting after authentication; c. on-boarding a second user or customer onto the service provider; d. initiation of a session for synchronous communication initially between the first user with the customer for customer onboarding; e. initiation of one or more projects between the first user, customer, and vendor comprising associating one or more customer projects; f. Onboarding of the customer, vendor and third party entities by providing them access; g. presentation of one or more aspects of the project wherein the first user, customers, vendor and associated parties comprising all users in communication and the communication is selectively enabled by the first user between the customer and vendor depending on level of access provided by the user; h. collaboration by a collaborating of the user, customer, vendor, and third party entities; j. initiation for real time interaction; mapping of the information flow between the first user, customer, vendor, and third party entities, and integration of the communication of the user, customer, vendor and associated entities by the collaboration;
wherein the to collaborate and share centralized communication shared between the parties collaborating, collaborate one or more teams workflow management and integrate the data from external and internal communication and workflow management.
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). 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 receiving and providing access to information and managing workflow among users for a project and providing collaboration between users, vendors, customers, and third party entities. 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 and 5 include the following additional elements:
A system comprising: a service provider interface with a user facing project management platform; a network; one or more servers; one or more user interfaces;
user facing project management server comprises a communication collaboration module, processor, database or memory, a communication repository, data presentation module, data retrieving module, data notification module and computer readable instructions which when executed by the processor:
provides a communicable linkage by the communication collaboration module… integrates the communication tools and work flow management tools of the users with the platform;
the communication repository is configured to dynamically update and store real-time data from one or more of the communication tools and the work flow management tools, integrated to the platform,
database to store all the data the data retrieving module configured to retrieve relevant data from the memory and the communication repository based on the user input, and
the data presentation module adapted to provide conditional access to data mapped and identified by the communication collaboration module over the platform and
display on the dashboard…real-time to the platform, to access, [data] projects, project related communication and work flow management directly on the single user facing project management platform.
5. A project management system 100, comprising steps: a. a user facing service provider platform (software); b. connecting to the server over the network after authentication; d. initiation of a session on the interface for synchronous communication initially between the first user at the interface; e. providing them access to the platform; g. presentation by a presentation module of the dashboard view.. in network communication on the platform and the communication is selectively enabled; h. a collaborating module (software) j. initiation of the session on the shared space of the platform for real time interaction; and integration of the communication tools to the platform by the collaboration module over the network; k. storing real-time and historic data in the communication repository; l. storing of the shared and other project related data in the database; m. retrieving of the relevant data by the data retrieving module in the server from the database, and wherein the platform is configured to collaborate and share centralized communication on the platform, and integrate the data on the user facing project management platform from external and internal communication and workflow management tools.
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 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, the limitations regarding storing real-time and historic data of the interactive communication in the session related to the projects, related data and communication data of the user, customer, vendors and associated parties in the communication repository; l. storing of the shared and other project related data of the user, customer, vendors and third parties post session in the database; m. retrieving of the relevant data by the data retrieving module in the server as selected by the user customer and vendor and associated parties from the database, amounts to data gathering and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, 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 reciting 2. The system for collaborative user facing project management as claimed in claim 1, wherein the communication tools are selected from internal communication tools inbuilt in the server of service provider platform or external communication tools. 3. The system for collaborative user facing project management as claimed in claim 1, wherein the work flow management tools are selected from Jira, Slack, Zendesk, and the like. 4. The system for collaborative user facing project management as claimed in claim 1, wherein the communication tools comprises of MS teams, Google meet, electronic messaging accessible on any computer implementable device, comprising email, gmail, electronic text messaging and the like, 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. Furthermore dependent claims 2-8 and 10-20 comprise the following additional elements: workflow management tools (software)and internal communication tools (software) and the list of trademarked communication tools used (MS teams, Google, Gmail, Jira, Slack, Zendesk). These additional elements do not provide any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and at best simply applying the abstract idea executed in a general-purpose computer environment. 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 1-20 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.
Conclusion
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.
US 20090019367 Collaboration via one or more networks
Y. Hao, P. Helo and A. Shamsuzzoha, "Cloud-based data exchange and messaging platform implementation for Virtual Factory environment," 2015 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Singapore, 2015, pp. 426-430, doi: 10.1109/IEEM.2015.7385682.
San Murugesan; Irena Bojanova, "Engineering Applications of the Cloud," in Encyclopedia of Cloud Computing , IEEE, 2016, pp.489-504, doi: 10.1002/9781118821930.ch40.
M. Aoyama et al., "A Resource-Oriented Services Platform for Managing Software Supply Chains and Its Experience," 2014 IEEE International Conference on Web Services, Anchorage, AK, USA, 2014, pp. 598-605, doi: 10.1109/ICWS.2014.89.
M. Polaschek, W. Zeppelzauer, N. Kryvinska and C. Strauss, "Enterprise 2.0 Integrated Communication and Collaboration Platform: A Conceptual Viewpoint," 2012 26th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops, Fukuoka, Japan, 2012, pp. 1221-1226, doi: 10.1109/WAINA.2012.73.
As a whole, the claimed invention in this application is deemed to be directed to a nonobvious improvement over the closest prior art of record. The prior art of record does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination of limitations claimed in this application for the independent claims of this application.
Ford (US 20180367506) discloses a federated search facility adapted to search for content on a plurality of disparate computer content storage facilities comprising receiving a computer content search request from a client computing device, wherein the user of the client computing device has access rights to secure computer content on at least one of a first content storage and a second content storage; executing a first computer content search on the first content storage and a second computer content search on the second content storage; receiving a first computer content search result from the first content storage and a second computer content search result from the second content storage; consolidating the first computer content search result and the second computer content search result into a consolidated computer content search result; and providing the consolidated computer content search result to the user as a single computer content search result.
However, the specific claimed limitations of on boarding users comprising vendors and associated third party entities, provides a communicable linkage by the communication collaboration module adapted to map information flow between service provider, vendors, and third parties associated with vendors, integrates the communication tools and work flow management tools of the users with the platform, the communication repository is configured to dynamically update and store real-time data from one or more of the communication tools and the work flow management tools, integrated to the platform, database to store all the data the data retrieving module configured to retrieve relevant data from the memory and the communication repository based on the user input, and the data presentation module adapted to provide conditional access to data mapped and identified by the communication collaboration module over the platform and display on the dashboard for exchange between vendor, and third parties that are integrated real-time to the platform, to access, manage and implement projects, project related communication and work flow management directly on the single user facing project management platform, in the independent claims 1 and 5 are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art, either alone or in combination.
Specifically, none of the prior art, sufficiently teaches or suggests, either alone or in combination, of on-boarding a second user or customer onto the service provider platform; d. initiation of a session on the interface for synchronous communication initially between the first user at the interface with the customer for customer onboarding; e. initiation of one or more projects between the first user, customer, and vendor over the platform comprising associating one or more customer projects on the platform; f. Onboarding of the customer, vendor and third party entities by providing them access to the platform; g. presentation by a presentation module of the dashboard view of one or more aspects of the project wherein the first user, customers, vendor and associated parties comprising all users are in network communication on the platform and the communication is selectively enabled by the first user between the customer and vendor depending on level of access provided by the user ; h. collaboration by a collaborating module of the user, customer, vendor, and third party entities on the platform; j. initiation of the session on the shared space of the platform for real time interaction; mapping of the information flow between the first user, customer, vendor, and third party entities, and integration of the communication tools of the user, customer, vendor and associated entities to the platform by the collaboration module over the network; k. storing real-time and historic data of the interactive communication in the session related to the projects, related data and communication data of the user, customer, vendors and associated parties in the communication repository; l. storing of the shared and other project related data of the user, customer, vendors and third parties post session in the database; m. retrieving of the relevant data by the data retrieving module in the server as selected by the user customer and vendor and associated parties from the database, and wherein the platform is configured to collaborate and share centralized communication shared between the parties collaborating on the platform, collaborate one or more teams workflow management and integrate the data on the user facing project management platform from external and internal communication and workflow management tools, in combination with other recited limitations of independent claims 1 and 5, as a whole.
The prior art teachings as recited above fail to set forth any sufficient rationale for combining or otherwise modifying any of the relevant prior art to arrive at the claimed invention, as a whole.
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