DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is responsive to the application filed June 2nd, 2023. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 8 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation beginning "wherein the last" recites. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1-19
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (method), 11 (system), and dependent claims 2-10, and 12-19, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e. process), claim 9 is directed to a system (i.e. machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite method for improved entity close management, the method comprising: creating an entity close scheme comprising a plurality of nodes and edges connecting the plurality of nodes, wherein the nodes represent task objects with predefined timing conditions, and the edges define predecessor-successor relationship between pairs of nodes; executing the task objects represented by the nodes according to the predefined timing conditions of the task objects and the predecessor-successor relationship defined by the edges; monitoring status of the task objects during execution of the task objects; flagging the status of a completed task object represented by a selected node to be invalid based on evaluation of results of the completed task object; determining, at runtime, downstream nodes of the selected node, wherein a downstream node is connected to the selected node by one or more edges; identifying, at runtime, contingent downstream nodes among the downstream nodes of the selected node, wherein the edges connecting a contingent downstream node to the selected node have a contingent property, wherein the contingent property of an edge connecting a predecessor node to a successor node indicates that results of a task object represented by the successor node is contingent on results of a task object represented by the predecessor node; and flagging, at runtime, the status of task objects represented by the contingent downstream nodes to be invalid upon completion of the task objects represented by the contingent downstream nodes (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are performing entity close management comprising the execution of task objects; monitoring the status of the task objects; flagging the status of a completed task object; determining downstream nodes of the selected node; identifying contingent downstream nodes; and flagging the status of task objects, which is managing personal behavior and interactions. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are performing entity close management, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are performing entity close management comprising the execution of task objects; monitoring the status of the task objects; flagging the status of a completed task object; determining downstream nodes of the selected node; identifying contingent downstream nodes; and flagging the status of task objects, which are observations, judgments, and evaluations of the human mind. Additionally, the flagging of the status of tasks can be performed utilizing pen & paper. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are performing entity close management, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the identification of non-contingent downstream nodes; the execution of a task object; removing the invalid status of the task object; creating the entity close scheme; and changing the status of the pseudo task object. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior as well as mental process. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the claimed “a computer; A computing system for improved entity close management, comprising: memory; one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory; and one or more computer readable storage media storing instructions that, when loaded into the memory, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform operations” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). In addition, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 further narrow the abstract idea.
The claimed “a computer; A computing system for improved entity close management, comprising: memory; one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory; and one or more computer readable storage media storing instructions that, when loaded into the memory, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform operations” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 1-10; and System claims 11-19 recite “a computer; A computing system for improved entity close management, comprising: memory; one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory; and one or more computer readable storage media storing instructions that, when loaded into the memory, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform operations”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0099-0104 and Figures 1, 11, & 12. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-10 and 12-19 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 20
Step 1: Independent claim 20 (one or more non-transitory computer readable media), respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 20 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer readable media (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite method for improved entity close management, the method comprising: creating an entity close scheme comprising a plurality of nodes and edges connecting the plurality of nodes, wherein the nodes represent task objects with predefined timing conditions, and the edges define predecessor-successor relationship between pairs of nodes; executing the task objects represented by the nodes according to the predefined timing conditions of the task objects and the predecessor-successor relationship defined by the edges; monitoring status of the task objects during execution of the task objects; flagging the status of a completed task object represented by a selected node to be invalid based on evaluation of results of the completed task object; determining, at runtime, downstream nodes of the selected node, wherein a downstream node is connected to the selected node by one or more edges; identifying, at runtime, contingent downstream nodes among the downstream nodes of the selected node, wherein the edges connecting a contingent downstream node to the selected node have a contingent property, wherein the contingent property of an edge connecting a predecessor node to a successor node indicates that results of a task object represented by the successor node is contingent on results of a task object represented by the predecessor node; and flagging, at runtime, the status of task objects represented by the contingent downstream nodes to be invalid upon completion of the task objects represented by the contingent downstream nodes, wherein creating the entity close scheme comprises: identifying P predecessor nodes and S successor nodes that are interconnected by P × S edges therebetween, wherein P and S are greater than one; removing the P × S edges connecting the P predecessor nodes and S successor nodes; inserting a milestone node between the P predecessor nodes and S successor nodes, wherein the milestone node represents a pseudo task object having zero execution duration; creating P new edges connecting the P predecessor nodes to the milestone node; and creating S new edges connecting the milestone node to the S successor nodes. (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Processes), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are performing entity close management comprising the execution of task objects; monitoring the status of the task objects; flagging the status of a completed task object; determining downstream nodes of the selected node; identifying contingent downstream nodes; and flagging the status of task objects, which is managing personal behavior and interactions. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are performing entity close management, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are performing entity close management comprising the execution of task objects; monitoring the status of the task objects; flagging the status of a completed task object; determining downstream nodes of the selected node; identifying contingent downstream nodes; and flagging the status of task objects, which are observations, judgments, and evaluations of the human mind. Additionally, the flagging of the status of tasks can be performed utilizing pen & paper. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are performing entity close management, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the claimed “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media having encoded thereon computer-executable instructions causing one or more processors, when programmed thereby” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media having encoded thereon computer-executable instructions causing one or more processors, when programmed thereby” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, the non-transitory computer-readable media claim recites “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media having encoded thereon computer-executable instructions causing one or more processors, when programmed thereby”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0106 and Figures 1, 11, & 12. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The additional limitations of the independent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 11-12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (U.S 2010/0138268 A1) in view of Neeter (U.S 2021/0019215 A1).
Claims 1 and 11
Regarding Claim 1, Guo discloses the following:
A computer-implemented method for improved entity close management, the method comprising [see at least Paragraph 0012 for reference to methods described herein may provide a progress management platform that creates a progress management model based on milestones, tasks, and/or dependencies associated with a project, and that creates intuitive and interactive project flow chart; Figures 9-12 and related text regarding an exemplary process]
creating an entity close scheme comprising a plurality of nodes and edges connecting the plurality of nodes, wherein the nodes represent task objects with predefined timing conditions, and the edges define predecessor-successor relationship between pairs of nodes [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to graphic flow charts being dynamically generated (e.g., by progress management server) based on predefined templates including dependencies among tasks and additional project information (e.g., project start and end dates, task start and end dates, duration, etc.); Paragraph 0044 for reference to task information including task planned duration, task start date, task due date, task predecessor, etc.; Paragraph 0056 for reference to the user interface depicting a graph flow chart of tasks associated with milestones; Paragraph 0058 for reference to tasks including names of tasks associated with the milestones and representations (e.g., rectangular nodes) of the tasks associated with the milestone; Paragraph 0059 for reference to dependencies including dependencies among one or more tasks represented by arrows (e.g., directed arcs) provided between tasks; Figures 7-8 and related text regarding displaying graphic flow charts of tasks]
executing the task objects represented by the nodes according to the predefined timing conditions of the task objects and the predecessor-successor relationship defined by the edges [see at least Paragraph 0020 for reference to the servers interacting to automate task execution of a project generated by project management server; Paragraph 0073 for reference to the process management server utilizing task information and dependency information to automatically execute a task by integrating with a backend application and following prebuilt logic without inputs from the user]
monitoring status of the task objects during execution of the task objects [see at least Paragraph 0032 for reference to the progress management server including a database that provides a central repository for storing project-related information; Paragraph 0081 for reference to the process receiving milestone, task, and/or dependency information associated with a project during its active installation]
flagging the status of a completed task object represented by a selected node to be invalid based on evaluation of results of the completed task object [see at least Paragraph 0058 for reference to tasks being shaped, colored, highlighted, distinguished, etc. in different ways to represent status information associated with tasks; Paragraph 0061 for reference to a user selecting a task and task details including status of the task displaying]
determining, at runtime, downstream nodes of the selected node, wherein a downstream node is connected to the selected node by one or more edges [see at least Paragraph 0059 for reference to the displayed dependencies amongst tasks; Paragraph 0061 for reference to a user selecting a task and task details including predecessor task of the task displaying; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 720 ‘dependencies’]
While Guo discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose identifying, at runtime, contingent downstream nodes among the downstream nodes of the selected node, wherein the edges connecting a contingent downstream node to the selected node have a contingent property, wherein the contingent property of an edge connecting a predecessor node to a successor node indicates that results of a task object represented by the successor node is contingent on results of a task object represented by the predecessor node; and flagging, at runtime, the status of task objects represented by the contingent downstream nodes to be invalid upon completion of the task objects represented by the contingent downstream nodes.
However, Neeter discloses the following:
monitoring status of the task objects during execution of the task objects [see at least Paragraph 0077 for reference to the system continuously monitoring and determining if the user performs a known action; Paragraph 0077 for reference to the system tracking and recording recognized user action’s and logging the progress of the user throughout the activities]
flagging the status of a completed task object represented by a selected node to be invalid based on evaluation of results of the completed task object [see at least Paragraph 0077 for reference to after a node of the tree is executed, the node returns as status (e.g., running, succeeded, failed); Paragraph 0077 for reference to if at any point in time throughout the progress of a given action is detected that would render the execution of the tree overall to output a failed state, the system asses the performance of the user recognized action as a “fail”]
identifying, at runtime, contingent downstream nodes among the downstream nodes of the selected node, wherein the edges connecting a contingent downstream node to the selected node have a contingent property, wherein the contingent property of an edge connecting a predecessor node to a successor node indicates that results of a task object represented by the successor node is contingent on results of a task object represented by the predecessor node [see at least Paragraph 0078 for reference to certain nodes being conditional nodes that correspond to conditional events to be satisfied before certain actions occur; Paragraph 0078 for reference to satisfaction of a condition specified by node 508 can be required before the actions associated with nodes 512, 514, and 516 can be performed, where performance of the actions associated with nodes 512, 514, and/or 516 before the conditional event of node 508 is satisfied can result in a failure; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 508 and 520 ‘conditional nodes’]
flagging, at runtime, the status of task objects represented by the contingent downstream nodes to be invalid upon completion of the task objects represented by the contingent downstream nodes [see at least Paragraph 0077 for reference to after a node of the tree is executed, the node returns as status (e.g., running, succeeded, failed); Paragraph 0077 for reference to if at any point in time throughout the progress of a given action is detected that would render the execution of the tree overall to output a failed state, the system assesses the performance of the user recognized action as a “fail”; Paragraph 0078 for reference to performance of the actions associated with nodes 512, 514, and/or 516 before the conditional event of node 508 is satisfied can result in a failure]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the task progress management method of Guo to include the identification and flagging of contingent nodes of Neeter. Doing so the system can determine whether the user is performing the activities and actions associated with the routine or procedure are being performed correct and in the correct sequence, as stated by Neeter (Paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 11, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 11, Guo teaches a computing system for improved entity close management comprising: memory; one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory; and one or more computer readable storage media storing instructions that, when loaded into the memory, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform operations [Paragraphs 0012, 0017, & Figures 1-3]. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of Guo and Neeter.
Claims 2 and 12
While the combination of Guo and Neeter disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 2, Guo discloses the following:
identifying, at runtime, non-contingent downstream nodes among the downstream nodes of the selected node [see at least Paragraph 0061 for reference to if the user selects one of tasks user interface displaying task details; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 710 ‘tasks’ and including, for example, ‘Distribute List’, ‘Submit Review’, and ‘Check Point For Contract’ would be non-contingent downstream nodes of the first row
wherein a non-contingent downstream node is connected to one or more predecessor nodes that are either the selected node or downstream nodes of the selected node by edges with a non-contingent property [see at least Paragraph 0059 for reference to dependencies among one or more tasks being represented by arrows provided between tasks; Paragraph 0061 for reference to if the user selects one of tasks user interface displaying task details; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 710 ‘tasks’ and including, for example, ‘Distribute List’, ‘Submit Review’, and ‘Check Point For Contract’ would be non-contingent downstream nodes of the first row]
wherein the non-contingent property of an edge connecting a predecessor node to a successor node indicates that results of a task object represented by the successor node is not contingent on results of a task object represented by the predecessor node [see at least Paragraph 0059 for reference to dependencies among one or more tasks being represented by arrows provided between tasks; Paragraph 0061 for reference to if the user selects one of tasks user interface displaying task details; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 710 ‘tasks’ and including, for example, ‘Distribute List’, ‘Submit Review’, and ‘Check Point For Contract’ would be non-contingent downstream nodes of the first row]
wherein flagging the status of the completed task object represented by the selected node does not change the status of task objects represented by the non-contingent downstream nodes [see at least Paragraph 0058 for reference to tasks being shaped, colored, highlighted, distinguished, etc. in different ways to represent status information associated with tasks; Paragraph 0061 for reference to a user selecting a task and task details including status of the task displaying]
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 7 and 17
While the combination of Guo and Neeter disclose the above limitations, regarding Claim 7, Guo discloses the following:
wherein creating the entity close scheme comprises defining a planned start time for a first task object represented by a first node [see at least Paragraph 0032 for reference to task information including start dates; Paragraph 0061 for reference to the task details including a start date]
wherein execution of the first task object starts at the planned start time on a condition that all predecessor task objects of the first task object have been completed at respective completion times before the planned start time [see at least Paragraph 0020 for reference to the servers interacting to automate task execution of a project generated by project management server; Paragraph 0073 for reference to the process management server utilizing task information and dependency information to automatically execute a task by integrating with a backend application and following prebuilt logic without inputs from the user]
wherein the all predecessor task objects are respectively represented by all predecessor nodes of the first node [see at least Paragraph 0032 for reference to task information including predecessor tasks; Paragraph 0061 for reference to the task details including predecessor tasks]
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 7.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (U.S 2010/0138268 A1) in view of Neeter (U.S 2021/0019215 A1), as applied in claims 2 and 12, in view of Jones (U.S 2023/0222019 A1).
Claims 3 and 13
While the combination of Guo and Neeter disclose the above limitations, they do not disclose wherein execution of a task object represented by a successor node is disabled responsive to finding that the successor node is connected to at least one predecessor node by an edge having the contingent property, and status of a task object represented by the predecessor node indicates that the task object represented by the predecessor nodes is completed with an error.
Regarding Claim 3, Jones discloses the following:
wherein execution of a task object represented by a successor node is disabled responsive to finding that the successor node is connected to at least one predecessor node by an edge having the contingent property, and status of a task object represented by the predecessor node indicates that the task object represented by the predecessor nodes is completed with an error [see at least Paragraph 0133 for reference to one or more nodes of execution graph 802 can be enabled or disabled after graph instantiation and/or during graph execution using systems and methods such as those described herein; Paragraph 0148 for reference to the process for disabling a graph node of an execution graph; Paragraph 0151 for reference to an error being returned within the progress for disabling a graph node; Figures 8-9 & 11-13 and related text regarding an example execution graph where graph nodes are disabled]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the created scheme of Guo to include the disabling of nodes of Jones. An amount of memory, time, or computing resources used to perform computation operations can be improved by using an instantiated execution graph to configure a GPU to perform computational operations efficiently and/or in parallel, as stated by Jones (Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 14
While the combination of Guo, Neeter, and Jones disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 4, Guo discloses the following:
wherein status of the task objects represented by the one or more predecessor nodes indicate that the task objects represented by the one or more predecessor nodes are completed [see at least Paragraph 0058 for reference to tasks being shaped, colored, highlighted, distinguished, etc. in different ways to represent status information associated with tasks; Paragraph 0061 for reference to a user selecting a task and task details including status of the task displaying]
While Guo discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose wherein execution of a task object represented by a successor node is enabled responsive to finding that the successor node is connected to one or more predecessor nodes by edges having the non-contingent property.
However, Jones discloses the following:
wherein execution of a task object represented by a successor node is enabled responsive to finding that the successor node is connected to one or more predecessor nodes by edges having the non-contingent property [see at least Paragraph 0133 for reference to one or more nodes of execution graph 802 can be enabled or disabled after graph instantiation and/or during graph execution using systems and methods such as those described herein; Figures 9-10 and related text regarding example execution graph where graph nodes enabled]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the created scheme of Guo to include the enabling of nodes of Jones. An amount of memory, time, or computing resources used to perform computation operations can be improved by using an instantiated execution graph to configure a GPU to perform computational operations efficiently and/or in parallel, as stated by Jones (Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 4.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (U.S 2010/0138268 A1) in view of Neeter (U.S 2021/0019215 A1), as applied in claim 1 and 11, in view of Zlatnik (U.S 9,171,102 B1).
Claims 5 and 15
While the combination of Guo and Neeter disclose the above limitations, they do not disclose after removing the invalid status of the completed task object represented by the selected node, removing, at runtime, the invalid status of the task objects represented by the contingent downstream nodes.
Regarding Claim 5, Zlatnik discloses the following:
after removing the invalid status of the completed task object represented by the selected node, removing, at runtime, the invalid status of the task objects represented by the contingent downstream nodes [see at least Col 10 lines 51-56 for reference to the dependency manager changing the status of each of the vertices of the cyclic, strong subcomponent and the vertices upon which that cyclic, strong subcomponent depend; Figure 6 and related text regarding topographical sorting and scheduling process]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the created scheme of Guo to include the removal of status of task objects of Zlatnik. Doing so the topology object then may be utilized to sort the acyclic components of the directed graph based the dependencies between the remaining vertices, as stated by Zlatnik (Col 2 lines 56-58).
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6 and 16
While the combination of Guo, Neeter, and Zlatnik disclose the above limitations, Guo does not disclose wherein removing the invalid status of the task objects represented by the contingent downstream nodes is contingent on a condition that the results of the completed task object represented by the selected node have not been changed since flagging the status of the completed task object represented by the selected node to be invalid.
Regarding Claim 6, Zlatnik discloses the following:
wherein removing the invalid status of the task objects represented by the contingent downstream nodes is contingent on a condition that the results of the completed task object represented by the selected node have not been changed since flagging the status of the completed task object represented by the selected node to be invalid [see at least Col 9 lines 38-50 for reference to the default status of all the vertices are valid when the map is initially generated and the changes being performed if any vertices remain until the topology object is cleared; Col 10 lines 51-56 for reference to the dependency manager changing the status of each of the vertices of the cyclic, strong subcomponent and the vertices upon which that cyclic, strong subcomponent depend; Figure 6 and related text regarding topographical sorting and scheduling process]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the created scheme of Guo to include the removal of status of task objects of Zlatnik. Doing so the topology object then may be utilized to sort the acyclic components of the directed graph based the dependencies between the remaining vertices, as stated by Zlatnik (Col 2 lines 56-58).
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 6.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (U.S 2010/0138268 A1) in view of Neeter (U.S 2021/0019215 A1), as applied in claims 1 and 11, in view of Yang (U.S 2019/0034223 A1).
Claims 8 and 18
While the combination of Guo and Neeter disclose the limitations above, they do not disclose wherein creating the entity close scheme comprises defining a trigger for a second task object represented by a second node, wherein the trigger causes the execution of the second task object to start at a last completion time on a condition that all predecessor task objects of the second task object have been completed at respective completion times, wherein the last completion time is the latest one of the completion times of all predecessor task objects, wherein the all predecessor task objects are respectively represented by all predecessor nodes of the second node.
Regarding Claim 8, Yang discloses the following:
wherein creating the entity close scheme comprises defining a trigger for a second task object represented by a second node [see at least Paragraph 0044 for reference to a first condition is that a time resource conflict does not exist for the tasks; Paragraph 0048 for reference the post-scheduling tasks satisfying a second condition that is the completion times of all tasks do not exceed their set task deadline times]
wherein the trigger causes the execution of the second task object to start at a last completion time on a condition that all predecessor task objects of the second task object have been completed at respective completion times [see at least Paragraph 0072 for reference to all the tasks which have a time resource conflict with the first task awaiting scheduling may be ordered according to their completion times from earliest to latest, and then, by order from latest to earliest, from among the above - mentioned all the tasks which have a time resource conflict with the first task awaiting scheduling, one or more first overlapping tasks are selected successively]
wherein the last completion time is the latest one of the completion times of all predecessor task objects, wherein the all predecessor task objects are respectively represented by all predecessor nodes of the second node [see at least Paragraph 0094 for reference to with the latest completion time among all the parent node tasks designated as the starting time of the target task(s); Paragraph 0120 for reference to the starting times of each B - type task among task group 2 are the latest completion time among all depended upon parent nodes]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the created scheme of Guo to include the starting condition and latest start time adaptation of Yang. Doing so each task may be maintained as executed ordered by level, ensuring as much as possible that tasks corresponding to high - level requests preferentially obtain resources, and thereby may be preferentially executed, as stated by Yang (Paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 8.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (U.S 2010/0138268 A1) in view of Neeter (U.S 2021/0019215 A1) in view of Tacchi (U.S 9,558,265 B1).
Claims 9 and 19
While the combination of Guo and Neeter disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 9, Guo discloses the following:
wherein creating the entity close scheme comprises: identifying P predecessor nodes and S successor nodes that are interconnected by P × S edges therebetween [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to graphic flow charts being dynamically generated (e.g., by progress management server) based on predefined templates including dependencies among tasks and additional project information (e.g., project start and end dates, task start and end dates, duration, etc.); Paragraph 0044 for reference to task information including task planned duration, task start date, task due date, task predecessor, etc.; Paragraph 0056 for reference to the user interface depicting a graph flow chart of tasks associated with milestones; Paragraph 0058 for reference to tasks including names of tasks associated with the milestones and representations (e.g., rectangular nodes) of the tasks associated with the milestone; Paragraph 0059 for reference to dependencies including dependencies among one or more tasks represented by arrows (e.g., directed arcs) provided between tasks; Figures 7-8 and related text regarding displaying graphic flow charts of tasks]
inserting a milestone node between the P predecessor nodes and S successor nodes, wherein the milestone node represents a pseudo task object having zero execution duration [see at least Paragraph 0032 for reference to the progress management server receiving milestone information including a baseline against which progress may be measured throughout the like of the project, and milestone owners; Paragraph 0071 for reference to progress management server utilizing milestone information, task information, and/or dependency information to generate a model; Figure 9 and related text regarding the milestone flow chart with dependencies being generated based on the milestone information; Examiner notes that the identification of milestone owner of the milestone is analogous to the ‘zero execution duration’]
creating P new edges connecting the P predecessor nodes to the milestone node; and creating S new edges connecting the milestone node to the S successor nodes [see at least Paragraph 0082 for reference to the re-generation of the milestone flowchart based on the milestone and dependency information which may result in a new progress management model (e.g., with a revised set of milestone information and task information); Figure 12 and related text regarding item 1230]
While Guo discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose wherein creating the entity close scheme comprises: wherein P and S are greater than one; removing the P × S edges connecting the P predecessor nodes and S successor nodes; wherein the milestone node represents a pseudo task object having zero execution duration.
However, Tacchi discloses the following:
wherein creating the entity close scheme comprises: identifying P predecessor nodes and S successor nodes that are interconnected by P × S edges therebetween, wherein P and S are greater than one [see at least Col 5 lines26-32 for reference to the process including obtaining data to form a graph in the form of a list of edges; Col 7 lines 51-60 for reference to the graph being a weighted graph having nodes and edges having weights indicating semantic similarity between pairs of nodes; Col 10 lines 7-12 for reference to the nodes of the graph representing the objects where the graph may represent relationships therebetween; Col 10 lines 21-25 for reference to the parameters for influencing the graph being selected as influencing parameters of the nodes; Col 12 lines 34-37 for reference to the edges being scaled by coefficients in increments from 0-12]
removing the P × S edges connecting the P predecessor nodes and S successor nodes [see at least Col 8 lines 35-39 for reference to comparing each weighted edge to an adjacency threshold and removing edges that fail to satisfy the threshold; Col 8 lines 39-41 for reference to removal of an edge may include designating the edge as removed (e.g., by setting its weight or other value to indicate the removal)]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the created scheme of Guo to include the node value and removal of edges of Tacchi. Doing so would relax dependency toward a particular choice of text describing respective objects represented in the graph, provide a more fulfilling picture of certain feature under observation, etc., which may allow for more efficient computation analyses and/or improved results therefrom, as stated by Tacchi (Col 4 lines 42-46).
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 9.
Claim 10
While the combination of Guo, Neeter, and Tacchi disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 10, Guo discloses the following:
changing the status of the pseudo task object, at a last completion time, to indicate a completion of the pseudo task object on a condition that the task objects represented by the P predecessor nodes have been completed at respective completion times, wherein the last completion time is the latest one of the completion times of the task objects represented by the P predecessor nodes [see at least Paragraph 0082 for reference to the re-generation of the milestone flowchart based on the milestone and dependency information which may result in a new progress management model (e.g., with a revised set of milestone information and task information); Figure 12 and related text regarding item 1230]
Claim 20
Regarding Claim 20, Guo discloses the following:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media having encoded thereon computer-executable instructions causing one or more processors, when programmed thereby, to perform a method for improved entity close management, comprising [see at least Paragraph 0027 for reference to an exemplary computer-readable medium that may be used by the user device, progress management server, and/or ebonding server of the network; Figure 3 and related text regarding an exemplary computer-readable medium that may be used by the user device, progress management server, and/or ebonding server of the network illustrated, specifically item 300 ‘computer-readable medium’]
creating an entity close scheme comprising a plurality of nodes and edges connecting the plurality of nodes, wherein the nodes represent task objects with predefined timing conditions, and the edges define predecessor-successor relationship between pairs of nodes [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to graphic flow charts being dynamically generated (e.g., by progress management server) based on predefined templates including dependencies among tasks and additional project information (e.g., project start and end dates, task start and end dates, duration, etc.); Paragraph 0044 for reference to task information including task planned duration, task start date, task due date, task predecessor, etc.; Paragraph 0056 for reference to the user interface depicting a graph flow chart of tasks associated with milestones; Paragraph 0058 for reference to tasks including names of tasks associated with the milestones and representations (e.g., rectangular nodes) of the tasks associated with the milestone; Paragraph 0059 for reference to dependencies including dependencies among one or more tasks represented by arrows (e.g., directed arcs) provided between tasks; Figures 7-8 and related text regarding displaying graphic flow charts of tasks]
executing the task objects represented by the nodes according to the predefined timing conditions of the task objects and the predecessor-successor relationship defined by the edges [see at least Paragraph 0020 for reference to the servers interacting to automate task execution of a project generated by project management server; Paragraph 0073 for reference to the process management server utilizing task information and dependency information to automatically execute a task by integrating with a backend application and following prebuilt logic without inputs from the user]
monitoring status of the task objects during execution of the task objects [see at least Paragraph 0032 for reference to the progress management server including a database that provides a central repository for storing project-related information; Paragraph 0081 for reference to the process receiving milestone, task, and/or dependency information associated with a project during its active installation]
flagging the status of a completed task object represented by a selected node to be invalid based on evaluation of results of the completed task object [see at least Paragraph 0058 for reference to tasks being shaped, colored, highlighted, distinguished, etc. in different ways to represent status information associated with tasks; Paragraph 0061 for reference to a user selecting a task and task details including status of the task displaying]
determining, at runtime, downstream nodes of the selected node, wherein a downstream node is connected to the selected node by one or more edges [see at least Paragraph 0059 for reference to the displayed dependencies amongst tasks; Paragraph 0061 for reference to a user selecting a task and task details including predecessor task of the task displaying; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 720 ‘dependencies’]
wherein creating the entity close scheme comprises: identifying P predecessor nodes and S successor nodes that are interconnected by P × S edges therebetween [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to graphic flow charts being dynamically generated (e.g., by progress management server) based on predefined templates including dependencies among tasks and additional project information (e.g., project start and end dates, task start and end dates, duration, etc.); Paragraph 0044 for reference to task information including task planned duration, task start date, task due date, task predecessor, etc.; Paragraph 0056 for reference to the user interface depicting a graph flow chart of tasks associated with milestones; Paragraph 0058 for reference to tasks including names of tasks associated with the milestones and representations (e.g., rectangular nodes) of the tasks associated with the milestone; Paragraph 0059 for reference to dependencies including dependencies among one or more tasks represented by arrows (e.g., directed arcs) provided between tasks; Figures 7-8 and related text regarding displaying graphic flow charts of tasks]
inserting a milestone node between the P predecessor nodes and S successor nodes [see at least Paragraph 0032 for reference to the progress management server receiving milestone information including a baseline against which progress may be measured throughout the like of the project, and milestone owners; Paragraph 0071 for reference to progress management server utilizing milestone information, task information, and/or dependency information to generate a model; Figure 9 and related text regarding the milestone flow chart with dependencies being generated based on the milestone information; Examiner notes that the identification of milestone owner of the milestone is analogous to the ‘zero execution duration’]
creating P new edges connecting the P predecessor nodes to the milestone node; and creating S new edges connecting the milestone node to the S successor nodes [see at least Paragraph 0082 for reference to the re-generation of the milestone flowchart based on the milestone and dependency information which may result in a new progress management model (e.g., with a revised set of milestone information and task information); Figure 12 and related text regarding item 1230]
While Guo discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose identifying, at runtime, contingent downstream nodes among the downstream nodes of the selected node, wherein the edges connecting a contingent downstream node to the selected node have a contingent property, wherein the contingent property of an edge connecting a predecessor node to a successor node indicates that results of a task object represented by the successor node is contingent on results of a task object represented by the predecessor node; and flagging, at runtime, the status of task objects represented by the contingent downstream nodes to be invalid upon completion of the task objects represented by the contingent downstream nodes, wherein creating the entity close scheme comprises: wherein P and S are greater than one; removing the P × S edges connecting the P predecessor nodes and S successor nodes.
However, Neeter discloses the following:
monitoring status of the task objects during execution of the task objects [see at least Paragraph 0077 for reference to the system continuously monitoring and determining if the user performs a known action; Paragraph 0077 for reference to the system tracking and recording recognized user action’s and logging the progress of the user throughout the activities]
flagging the status of a completed task object represented by a selected node to be invalid based on evaluation of results of the completed task object [see at least Paragraph 0077 for reference to after a node of the tree is executed, the node returns as status (e.g., running, succeeded, failed); Paragraph 0077 for reference to if at any point in time throughout the progress of a given action is detected that would render the execution of the tree overall to output a failed state, the system asses the performance of the user recognized action as a “fail”]
identifying, at runtime, contingent downstream nodes among the downstream nodes of the selected node, wherein the edges connecting a contingent downstream node to the selected node have a contingent property, wherein the contingent property of an edge connecting a predecessor node to a successor node indicates that results of a task object represented by the successor node is contingent on results of a task object represented by the predecessor node [see at least Paragraph 0078 for reference to certain nodes being conditional nodes that correspond to conditional events to be satisfied before certain actions occur; Paragraph 0078 for reference to satisfaction of a condition specified by node 508 can be required before the actions associated with nodes 512, 514, and 516 can be performed, where performance of the actions associated with nodes 512, 514, and/or 516 before the conditional event of node 508 is satisfied can result in a failure; Figure 5 and related text regarding item 508 and 520 ‘conditional nodes’]
flagging, at runtime, the status of task objects represented by the contingent downstream nodes to be invalid upon completion of the task objects represented by the contingent downstream nodes [see at least Paragraph 0077 for reference to after a node of the tree is executed, the node returns as status (e.g., running, succeeded, failed); Paragraph 0077 for reference to if at any point in time throughout the progress of a given action is detected that would render the execution of the tree overall to output a failed state, the system assesses the performance of the user recognized action as a “fail”; Paragraph 0078 for reference to performance of the actions associated with nodes 512, 514, and/or 516 before the conditional event of node 508 is satisfied can result in a failure]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the task progress management method of Guo to include the identification and flagging of contingent nodes of Neeter. Doing so the system can determine whether the user is performing the activities and actions associated with the routine or procedure are being performed correct and in the correct sequence, as stated by Neeter (Paragraph 0021).
While the combination of Guo and Neeter disclose the limitations above, they do not disclose wherein creating the entity close scheme comprises: wherein P and S are greater than one; removing the P × S edges connecting the P predecessor nodes and S successor nodes.
However, Tacchi discloses the following:
wherein creating the entity close scheme comprises: identifying P predecessor nodes and S successor nodes that are interconnected by P × S edges therebetween, wherein P and S are greater than one [see at least Col 5 lines26-32 for reference to the process including obtaining data to form a graph in the form of a list of edges; Col 7 lines 51-60 for reference to the graph being a weighted graph having nodes and edges having weights indicating semantic similarity between pairs of nodes; Col 10 lines 7-12 for reference to the nodes of the graph representing the objects where the graph may represent relationships therebetween; Col 10 lines 21-25 for reference to the parameters for influencing the graph being selected as influencing parameters of the nodes; Col 12 lines 34-37 for reference to the edges being scaled by coefficients in increments from 0-12]
removing the P × S edges connecting the P predecessor nodes and S successor nodes [see at least Col 8 lines 35-39 for reference to comparing each weighted edge to an adjacency threshold and removing edges that fail to satisfy the threshold; Col 8 lines 39-41 for reference to removal of an edge may include designating the edge as removed (e.g., by setting its weight or other value to indicate the removal)]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the created scheme of Guo to include the node value and removal of edges of Tacchi. Doing so would relax dependency toward a particular choice of text describing respective objects represented in the graph, provide a more fulfilling picture of certain feature under observation, etc., which may allow for more efficient computation analyses and/or improved results therefrom, as stated by Tacchi (Col 4 lines 42-46).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 2022/0108197 A1
Psenka et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ERROR DETECTION, REMEDIATION, AND INTEGRITY SCORING OF DIRECTED ACYCLIC GRAPHS
US 2008/0127041 A1
Gura, Gerald Alan
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR VALIDATING TASKS
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 PM EST.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624