DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to amendments filed April 30th, 2026. Claims 1, 8, 10, 11, 18, and 20 have been amended. Claims 2-4 and 12-14 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 5-11, and 15-20 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/02/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 04/30/36, with respect to claims 8 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 02/03/26 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 103 filed 04/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-13 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose the amended claim limitations. Beginning on page 11 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that cited Guo does not teach or suggest “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,” as recited in claim 1.” Specifically, on pages 11-12 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues cited Guo “does not teach evaluating the results of a completed task object, as based on that evaluation, changing the task object’s status to invalid.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and begins by asserting that the claim does not state the argued “changing the task object’s status to invalid” as asserted by Applicant. The claimed “flagging the status of a completed task object” is recited with a high-level of generality such that the “flagging” could merely be an observation of the current status of the task object which is analogous to the cited Paragraphs [0058] and [0061] of Guo. Further, while Applicant argues that cited Guo does not disclose “evaluating the results of a completed task object” Examiner further asserts that the claim does not state the active evaluating of the results of the completed task object but merely recites “evaluation of the results” with a high level of generality such that the status information and details associated with the task cited in Guo are analogous. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on page 12 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that cited Neeter does not teach or suggest “identifying … contingent downstream nodes among the downstream nodes of the selected note,” as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues “Neeter’s cited “conditional nodes” merely express that certain actions should not occur until a condition is satisfied. They do not disclose the claimed predecessor-successor framework in which is a downstream node is identified as contingent because an edge property indicates that the results of the successor task object are contingent on the results of the predecessor task object.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the tree structure of Neeter is analogous to the argued predecessor-successor framework per the cited Figure 5 and related text regarding conditional nodes and their corresponding leaf nodes. Examiner asserts that the argued contingent node is analogous to the conditional node with corresponding leaf nodes requiring the satisfaction of a condition which is further analogous to the argued results being contingent on the results of the predecessor task object. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant continues on page 12 of the provided remarks to argue that cited Neeter does not teach or suggest, “flagging … 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,” as required in claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues “Claim 1 requires a particular invalidation mechanism tied to a previously identified contingent downstream nodes.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claimed flagging to be invalid does not present the argued “particular invalidation mechanism”. Therefore, the cited determination of “failed” task status is analogous. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Finally, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose the amended “controlling execution of the task objects represented by the downstream nodes based on the contingent property, the non-contingent property, and the status of task objects represented by predecessor nodes”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that cited Guo discloses the automated execution of task objects based on contingent and non-contingent properties as well as the status of task objects. Further amended limitations are supported through cited Guo (U.S 2010/0138268 A1) in view of Neeter (U.S 2021/0019215 A1) in view of Yaratapally (U.S 2024/0264862 A1).
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 101 filed 04/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 13-18 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims present statutory subject matter. Beginning on page 13 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues regarding Step 2A Prong 1: Claims do not recite an abstract idea. Specifically, on page 14 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “amended claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented technique for configuring and operating an entity-close execution scheme having nodes and edges encoded with contingent and non-contingent dependency properties, and for controlling execution of downstream task objects at runtime based on those encoded edge properties and predecessor completion/error status. That is a specific graph-based execution-control mechanism, not a method of organizing human activity within the narrow categories recognized by the MPEP.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the argued “entity-close execution scheme having nodes and edges encoded with contingent and non-contingent dependency properties” represent, per paragraph [0050] of the as-filed Specification “The nodes represent task objects with predefined timing conditions, and the edges define predecessor-successor relationship between pairs of nodes.” These task objects are further defined in paragraph [0059] “have a plurality of properties, such as task ID, task status, assigned responsible personnel, etc.”. Therefore, the defined execution of the task objects by assigned responsible personnel recites the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the form of managing personal behavior. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant continues on page 13 of the provided remarks to argue, “the Action has not met its Step 2A, Prong 1 burden with respect to the "organizing human activity" characterization. The Action conclusively places the claims in the "managing personal behavior and interactions" category, but does not explain how a computer- maintained node-and-edge execution scheme with encoded contingent/non-contingent dependency properties, runtime identification of downstream nodes, and runtime control of successor task execution based on predecessor completion/error status falls within that enumerated sub-grouping.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the provided rejection follows the guidelines cited within MPEP 2106.07(a) “When the examiner has determined the claim recites an abstract idea, the rejection should identify the abstract idea as it is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim, and explain why it falls within one of the groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity) enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).” The previous and pending rejection underline the specific limitations which fall within the enumerated grouping as well as an explanation as to why it falls within one of the groupings. Examiner asserts that the rejection follows the provided “Sample explanation: The claim recites the step of comparing collected information to a predefined threshold, which is an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, this step is an abstract idea in the "mental process" grouping.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Continuing on page 14 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a “mental process”. Specifically, on page 15 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “computer-implemented operations are not practically performable in the human mind or with pen and paper, particularly as claimed in combination and as performed at runtime across a graph-based execution scheme.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the argued creation and maintaining of an entity-close execution scheme in the form of nodes and edges could be performed utilizing pen and paper. Additionally, the high-level recitation of “controlling execution of the downstream task objects” through the “withholding or permission of the execution of task objects” is a judgement and evaluation of predecessor completion/error status and encoded edge type. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, Applicant argues on pages 15-17 of the provided remarks that the amended claim limitations are integrated into a practical application. Beginning on page 16 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “amended claim 1 recites a number of meaningful limitations that are integrated into a practical application for improving entity close management.” Citing the amended limitations regarding “distinct graph structure” and “control successor-task execution” Applicant argues “These are meaningful limitations that improve operation of the graph- based entity-close management technology itself because the encoded edge structure gives the system execution-control flexibility not available in prior systems that only support contingent dependencies. In particular, the claimed structure allows the system to selectively control downstream task execution based on whether successor results actually depend on predecessor results, rather than uniformly blocking all successor execution until successful predecessor completion.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts, as stated above, that the argued “distinct graph structure” and “control successor-task execution” further define the abstract idea of mental process. Additionally, per MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.” Examiner asserts that the amended claims utilize generic computer components to implement the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Citing Ex parte Desjardins, Applicant argues on pages 16-17 of the provided remarks, that the claims present a technical solution to a technical problem. Citing paragraphs [0096-0097] Applicant argues “As a result, only those impacted task objects need to be re-executed, thereby reducing potential waste of resources and improving the operating efficiency compared to existing entity close management solutions.” In response to the claimed system improving the operating efficiency compared to existing entity close management solutions, Examiner asserts "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Further, as stated above, the amended claims utilize generic computer components to implement the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2B analysis, Applicant argues that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Citing Ex parte Mercer, Applicant argues on page 18 of the provided remarks, “claims 1, 11, and 20 recite a specific, non-conventional solution that provides a technical improvement in entity close management. As described above, amended claim 1 recites a specific ordered combination-including edges encoded with contingent and non- contingent dependency properties, runtime identification of downstream nodes based on those encoded properties, runtime invalidation of contingent downstream task objects, and runtime control of successor-task execution based on predecessor completion/error status-and the asserted prior-art combination failed to teach or suggest that ordered combination. The Action therefore fails to provide the required factual basis under Berkheimer.” Examiner begins by asserting that the requirement for factual basis under Berkheimer is not the sole determination under Step 2B analysis. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(1), the argued Berkheimer analysis is number 2 within a list of 3 points when determining whether additional elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Further, the argued elements by Applicant were not noted as reciting well-understood, routine, conventional activity but further defining the abstract idea. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot. The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is 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 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. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not 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.
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: “causing the task executor, at runtime, to withhold (or permit) execution of a task object” in claims 1, 11, and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 5-11, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claim limitation “causing a task executor, at runtime, to withhold (or permit) execution of a task object” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed ability of the executor, per paragraph [0040], “can be software applications configured to execute certain task objects automatically (e.g., calculating asset depreciations, converting currencies based on foreign exchange rate, generating financial reports, etc.).” There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to execute the software application. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5-11, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of withholding or permitting execution of a task object. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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, 5-11, and 15-20 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.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (method), 11 (system), claim 20 (one or more non-transitory computer readable media), and dependent claims 5-10, and 15-19, 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), and 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, the edges comprising edges encoded with a contingent property and edges encoded with a non-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 are contingent on results of a task object represented by the predecessor node, and 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 are not contingent on results of a task object represented by the predecessor node; managing execution of 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; identifying, at runtime, non-contingent downstream nodes among the downstream nodes of the selected node, 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 encoded with the non-contingent property; 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; and controlling execution of the task objects represented by the downstream nodes based on the contingent property, the non-contingent property, and status of task objects represented by predecessor nodes, including: causing a task executor, at runtime, to withhold execution of a task object represented by a successor node responsive to determining that the successor node is connected to at least one predecessor node by an edge encoded with the contingent property and that status of a task object represented by the at least one predecessor node indicates that the task object represented by the at least one predecessor node is completed with an error; and causing the task executor, at runtime, to permit execution of a task object represented by a successor node responsive to determining that the successor node is connected to one or more predecessor nodes by edges encoded with the non-contingent property and that status of the task objects represented by the one or more predecessor nodes indicates that the task objects represented by the one or more predecessor nodes are completed, including when at least one of the completed task objects represented by the one or more predecessor nodes is completed with an error. (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 and non-contingent downstream nodes; flagging the status of task objects; and controlling execution of the task objects represented by the downstream nodes based on the contingent property, the non-contingent property, and status of task objects represented by predecessor nodes, including: causing a task executor to withhold or permit execution of the task object, 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 & non-contingent downstream nodes; flagging the status of task objects, and controlling execution of the task objects represented by the downstream nodes based on the contingent property, the non-contingent property, and status of task objects represented by predecessor nodes, including: causing a task executor to withhold or permit execution of the task object, 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 5-10 and 15-19 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the 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 task executor; 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; 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). In addition, dependent claims 5-10 and 15-19 further narrow the abstract idea.
The claimed “a computer; a task executor; 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; 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, method claims 1 & 5-10; System claims 11 & 15-19; and one or more non-transitory computer readable media claim 20 recite “a computer; a task executor; 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; 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 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 5-10 and 15-19 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 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, 7, 11, 17, and 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 Yaratapally (U.S 2024/0264862 A1).
Claims 1, 11, and 20
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]
the edges comprising edges encoded with a contingent property and edges encoded with a non-contingent property [see at least Paragraph 0012 for reference to systems and/or methods may generate a milestone flow chart, with dependencies among milestones, based on the milestone information and associated dependency information, and may provide the milestone flow chart for display; Paragraph 0032 for reference to Dependency information may include relationships between project milestones and/or tasks linked by dependencies between finish and start dates; Paragraph 0059 for reference to dependencies among one or more tasks being represented by arrows provided between tasks; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 430 ‘dependency information’]
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 are 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 0059 for reference to As shown in FIG. 7, the “Distribute List task may depend on the “Identify Escalation List task; the “Submit Review' task may depend on the “Internal Review' task: the “Project Kickoff Meeting task may depend on the “Identify Escalation List,” “Prepare Startup Kit,” “Internal Review, and “Send Interface Doc To Customer' tasks; the “Check Point For Contract’ task may depend on the Authorization” task; the “Draft/Review Project Plan” and “Review Scope With Customer' tasks may depend on the “Project Kickoff Meeting task; and the “Customer Signoff task may depend on the “Draft/Review Project Plan” and “Review Scope With Customer 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, ‘Project Kickoff Meeting’ and ‘Draft/Review Project Plan’ would be 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 are 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]
managing execution of 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’]
controlling execution of the task objects represented by the downstream nodes based on the contingent property, the non-contingent property, and status of task objects represented by predecessor nodes [see at least Paragraph 0036 for reference to process automation may provide project tasks for auto-completion to ebonding server, and ebonding server may automate execution of the project tasks; Paragraph 0073 for reference to the progress management server utilizing milestone information, task information, and/or dependency information to automatically execute a task by integrating with a backend application and following prebuilt logic, without any inputs from the user; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 450 and item 470 ‘process automation’; Figure 9 and related text regarding task completion being performed through process automation block 980
While Guo discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose identifying, at runtime, contingent downstream nodes among the downstream nodes of the selected node; 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; causing a task executor, at runtime, to withhold execution of a task object represented by a successor node responsive to determining that the successor node is connected to at least one predecessor node by an edge encoded with the contingent property and that status of a task object represented by the at least one predecessor node indicates that the task object represented by the at least one predecessor node is completed with an error; and causing the task executor, at runtime, to permit execution of a task object represented by a successor node responsive to determining that the successor node is connected to one or more predecessor nodes by edges encoded with the non-contingent property and that status of the task objects represented by the one or more predecessor nodes indicates that the task objects represented by the one or more predecessor nodes are completed, including when at least one of the completed task objects represented by the one or more predecessor nodes is completed with an error.
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 [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’]
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]
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 causing a task executor, at runtime, to withhold execution of a task object represented by a successor node responsive to determining that the successor node is connected to at least one predecessor node by an edge encoded with the contingent property and that status of a task object represented by the at least one predecessor node indicates that the task object represented by the at least one predecessor node is completed with an error; and causing the task executor, at runtime, to permit execution of a task object represented by a successor node responsive to determining that the successor node is connected to one or more predecessor nodes by edges encoded with the non-contingent property and that status of the task objects represented by the one or more predecessor nodes indicates that the task objects represented by the one or more predecessor nodes are completed, including when at least one of the completed task objects represented by the one or more predecessor nodes is completed with an error.
However, Yaratapally discloses the following:
causing a task executor, at runtime, to withhold execution of a task object represented by a successor node responsive to determining that the successor node is connected to at least one predecessor node by an edge encoded with the contingent property and that status of a task object represented by the at least one predecessor node indicates that the task object represented by the at least one predecessor node is completed with an error [see at least Paragraph 0023 for reference to the system determining the priority score of a task at runtime; Paragraph 0033 for reference to the task executor being a multiprocessor device configured to concurrently process multiple tasks using multiple processors by allocating each node; Paragraph 0040 for reference to the system receiving task information including permitted execution time; Paragraph 0042 for reference to the system determining a dynamic acyclic graph based on determined dependencies; Paragraph 0043 for reference to initializing execution of nodes by the task executor; Paragraph 0049 for reference to the system (e.g., executing result processor 123) determines whether execution of any takes failed. If so (e.g., block 353 is “Yes”), then the process adds the failed nodes back to the queue; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 119 ‘task executor’]
causing the task executor, at runtime, to permit execution of a task object represented by a successor node responsive to determining that the successor node is connected to one or more predecessor nodes by edges encoded with the non-contingent property and that status of the task objects represented by the one or more predecessor nodes indicates that the task objects represented by the one or more predecessor nodes are completed, including when at least one of the completed task objects represented by the one or more predecessor nodes is completed with an error [see at least Paragraph 0023 for reference to the system determining the priority score of a task at runtime; Paragraph 0033 for reference to the task executor being a multiprocessor device configured to concurrently process multiple tasks using multiple processors by allocating each node; Paragraph 0040 for reference to the system receiving task information including permitted execution time; Paragraph 0042 for reference to the system determining a dynamic acyclic graph based on determined dependencies; Paragraph 0043 for reference to initializing execution of nodes by the task executor; Paragraph 0044 for reference to determines tasks in the task relationship table or corresponding nodes in the dynamic acyclic graph not currently dependent on any other task or node. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 5, nodes N1 and N2 are initially the only nodes in the dynamic acyclic graph 113 the do not depend from any other node; Paragraph 0049 for reference to the system (e.g., executing result processor 123) determines whether execution of any takes failed. If so (e.g., block 353 is “Yes”), then the process adds the failed nodes back to the queue; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 119 ‘task executor’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controlled execution of task objects of Guo to include the task executor controlled execution of Yaratapally. Doing so would improve the performance of multiprocessing computing systems by scheduling tasks for efficient throughput, increased utilization of the computing resources, and reduced waiting time for execution of tasks, as stated by Yaratapally (Paragraph 0026).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, 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]. Regarding claim 20, Guo teaches 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 [Paragraph 0027 and Figure 3]. Therefore, claims 11 and 20 are rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of Guo, Neeter, and Yaratapally.
Claims 7 and 17
While the combination of Guo, Neeter, and Yaratapally 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) 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) in view of Yaratapally (U.S 2024/0264862 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, Neeter, and Yaratapally 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 Yaratapally 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) in view of Yaratapally (U.S 2024/0264862 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, Neeter, and Yaratapally 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 a 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 a 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 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 Yaratapally (U.S 2024/0264862 A1), as applied in claims 1 and 11, in view of Tacchi (U.S 9,558,265 B1).
Claims 9 and 19
While the combination of Guo, Neeter, and Yaratapally 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, Yaratapally, 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 a 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]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Attie, Paul C., et al. "Scheduling workflows by enforcing intertask dependencies." Distributed Systems Engineering 3.4 (1996): 222-238.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 2018/0005150 A1
Birkler et al.
Business process model analyzer and runtime selector
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 et al.
Method and system for validating tasks
JP2750311B2
Mitsucheru et al.
Apparatus and method for controlling execution of data operations in a data processing device
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights