DETAILED ACTION Status of the Claims The following is a non-final Office Action in response to claims filed 04 August 2023. Claims 1-9 are pending. Claims 1-9 have been examined. The present application, while filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the pre-AIA provisions due to the priority as set forth below . Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application(s) 1 17/724,245 and 12/586,240 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp . Claims 1, 7, and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 -2, 6, 11-12 of copending Application No. 17/724,245 (now Patent No. 11,080,656) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct as shown below: 18/365,525 17/724,245 1. A system for configuring a meeting server to set up a meeting, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that when executed cause the system to perform receiving a plurality of risk categories for a project, a plurality of risks for each of the plurality of risk categories, and a plurality of scenarios for each of the plurality of risks, each scenario of the plurality of scenarios corresponding to one of a plurality of levels of the risk, providing a list of assigned documents for the project and a risk score for the project, the providing including, for each risk of the plurality of risks, receiving at least one document configured to contain the risk of the plurality of risks at a highest of the plurality of levels of risk, receiving an indication of whether filling out the at least one document outweighs a cost of filling out the at least one document for each level of risk other than the highest of the plurality of levels of risk , receiving an identification of a scenario of the plurality of scenarios that most closely corresponds to the project for the risk, adding, to the list of assigned documents, the at least one document if the identified scenario is the highest of the plurality of levels of the risk, adding, to the list of assigned documents, the at least one document if the at least one document outweighs the cost of filling out the at least one document if the scenario is a level of risk other than the highest of the plurality of levels of risk, and adding a score for the identified scenario to the risk score for the project, and arranging a meeting in response to the risk score exceeding a risk score threshold . 1. A method of configuring a meeting server to set up a meeting, comprising: receiving, at a computer system coupled to a memory system, names for each of a plurality of risk categories, and, for each of the risk categories in the plurality, names of each of a plurality of risks; receiving, at the computer system comprising a hardware computer processor coupled to the memory system, for each of the risks, a plurality of scenarios, each scenario corresponding to a different one of a plurality of levels of said risk; receiving, at the computer system coupled to the memory system, and storing on a tangible electronic media a first plurality of document names, for each of the first plurality of document names: an identifier of at least one risk for which a document corresponding to said document name is able to contain said at least one risk at a highest of the plurality of levels; and for each of at least some of the plurality of levels of said at least one risk other than the highest of the plurality of levels, an indication of whether risk containment benefits of completing the document corresponding to said document name for a project having a risk at the said level of risk other than the highest of the plurality of levels is worth an effort of completing said document ; receiving, at the computer system coupled to the memory system, for each of the plurality of risks, an identifier of one of the plurality of scenarios for said risk that most closely corresponds to a project; for each of the plurality of risks for which the scenario of the received identifier corresponds to the highest of the plurality of levels of risk, assigning, at the computer system coupled to the memory system, to the project by a hardware processor at least one document name received for which the document corresponding to the document name was indicated as being able to contain said risk at the highest of the plurality of levels; for each of the plurality of risks for which the received identifier of the scenario corresponding to the project corresponds to one of the plurality of levels of risk that is other than the highest of the plurality of levels of risk according to the tangible electronic media, assigning, at the computer system coupled to the memory system, to the project any document names for which the indication was received that the risk containment benefits of completing the document corresponding to the document name is worth the effort of completing said document at said risk level ; providing, from the computer system coupled to the memory system, the at least one document name assigned; assigning a score responsive to the plurality of risk names, and for each risk name, the identifier of the scenario for said risk; and causing a meeting server having an input coupled to a score threshold manager output to arrange a meeting responsive to the score exceeding a threshold . 6. A system for configuring a meeting server to set up a meeting, comprising: a risk category receiver comprising a hardware computer processor system coupled to a memory system, and having an input for receiving names of a plurality of risk categories, the risk category receiver for providing the plurality of risk category names at an output; a risk name receiver comprising the hardware computer processor system coupled to the memory system, and having an input coupled to the risk category receiver output, the input additionally for receiving, for each of the risk categories in the plurality, names of each of a plurality of risks, the risk name receiver for providing the risk names at an output; a scenario receiver comprising the hardware computer processor system coupled to the memory system, and having an input coupled to the risk category receiver output for receiving the risk category names and to the risk name receiver output for receiving the plurality of risk names, and additionally for receiving for each of the risks, a plurality of scenarios, each scenario corresponding to a different one of a plurality of levels of said risk, the scenario receiver for providing the plurality of scenarios, associated with the risk names at an output; a document name receiver comprising the hardware computer processor system coupled to the memory system, and having an input for receiving a plurality of document names, and for each of the plurality of document names, a name of at least one risk for which a document corresponding to said document name is able to contain said at least one risk at a highest of the plurality of levels, the document name receiver for providing at an output coupled to an electronic storage system the plurality of document names and the name of said risk corresponding to each document name received at the document name receiver input; an other risk level receiver comprising the hardware computer processor system coupled to the memory system, and having an input for receiving a name of a risk and, for each of at least some of the plurality of levels of said at least one risk other than the highest of the plurality of levels, an indication of whether risk containment benefits of completing the document corresponding to said document name for a project having a risk at the said level of risk other than the highest level is worth an effort of completing said document, the other risk level receiver for providing at an output coupled to the electronic storage system said risk name, and an identifier of each of said at least some of the plurality of levels ; a project information receipt manager comprising the hardware computer processor system coupled to the memory system, and having an input coupled to the risk name receiver for receiving the plurality of risk names, and for receiving for each of the plurality of risks, an identifier of one of the plurality of scenarios for said risk that most closely corresponds to a project, the project information receipt manager for providing at an output the plurality of risk names, and for each risk name, the identifier of the scenario for said risk received at the project information receipt manager input; a document assignor comprising the hardware computer processor system coupled to the memory system, and having an input coupled to the project information receipt manager output via the electronic storage system for receiving the plurality of risk names and identifiers of the scenario for the risk corresponding to the risk name, to the document name receiver output via the electronic storage system for receiving the plurality of document names and the name of said risk corresponding to each document name, and to the other risk level receiver output for receiving the risk name, and an identifier of each of said at least some of the plurality of levels, the document assignor for: for each of the plurality of risks for which the scenario of the received identifier corresponds to the highest of the plurality of levels of risk, assigning to the project at least one document name received for which the document corresponding to the document name was indicated as being able to contain said risk at the highest of the plurality of levels; for each of the risk names and identifiers of the scenarios received from the project information receipt manager that correspond to at least one of a set of risk names, and identifiers of each of said at least some of the plurality of levels received from other risk level receiver, assigning to the project any document names received from the document name receiver for said risk ; and providing at an output at the least one document name assigned; a score assignor having an input coupled to the project information receipt manager output, for receiving the plurality of risk names, and for each risk name, the identifier of the scenario for said risk, the score assignor for assigning a score responsive to the plurality of risk names, and for each risk name, the identifier of the scenario for said risk, and for providing the score at an output; and a score threshold manager having an input coupled to the score assignor output for receiving the score, the score threshold manager for causing the meeting server having an input coupled to the score threshold manager output to arrange a meeting responsive to the score exceeding a threshold. 11. A computer program product comprising a nontransitory computer useable medium having computer readable program code embodied therein for configuring a meeting server to set up a meeting, and comprising computer readable program code devices configured to cause a computer system coupled to a memory system to: receive, at the computer system coupled to the memory system, names for each of a plurality of risk categories, and, for each of the risk categories in the plurality, names of each of a plurality of risks; receive, at the computer system comprising a hardware computer processor coupled to the memory system, for each of the risks, a plurality of scenarios, each scenario corresponding to a different one of a plurality of levels of said risk; receive, at the computer system coupled to the memory system, and storing on a tangible electronic media a first plurality of document names, and for each of the first plurality of document names: an identifier of at least one risk for which a document corresponding to said document name is able to contain said at least one risk at a highest of the plurality of levels; and for each of at least some of the plurality of levels of said at least one risk other than the highest of the plurality of levels, an indication of whether risk containment benefits of completing the document corresponding to said document name for a project having a risk at the said level of risk other than the highest level is worth an effort of completing said document ; receiving, at the computer system coupled to the memory system, for each of the plurality of risks, an identifier of one of the plurality of scenarios for said risk that most closely corresponds to a project; for each of the plurality of risks for which the scenario of the received identifier corresponds to the highest of the plurality of levels of risk, assigning, at the computer system coupled to the memory system, to the project by a hardware processor at least one document name received for which the document corresponding to the document name was indicated as being able to contain said risk at the highest of the plurality of levels; for each of the plurality of risks for which the received identifier of the scenario corresponding to the project corresponds to one of the plurality of levels of risk that is other than the highest of the plurality of levels of risk according to the tangible electronic media, assign, at the computer system coupled to the memory system, to the project any document names for which the indication was received that the risk containment benefits of completing the document corresponding to the document name is worth the effort of completing said document at said risk level ; provide, from the computer system coupled to the memory system, the at least one document name assigned; assign a score responsive to the plurality of risk names, and for each risk name, the identifier of the scenario for said risk; and cause a meeting server having an input coupled to a score threshold manager output to arrange a meeting responsive to the score exceeding a threshold The independent claims 1, 6, and 11 of the copending Application No. 17/724,245 (now Patent No. 11,080,656, hereinafter ‘ 656 Patent) are not identical to the instant claim 1 but however claim the same inventive concept arranging a meeting based upon document risk within a project (the instant claims are much more broad). Here, specifically, instant claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the ‘ 656 Patent . The claims differ in that instant claim 1 recites that the receiving of an indication of whether filling out the at least one document outweighs a cost of filling out the at least one document for each level of risk other than the highest of the plurality of levels of risk whereas claim 1 of the ‘ 656 Patent does not recite such a limitation but also recites an identifier of at least one risk for which a document corresponding to said document name is able to contain said at least one risk at a highest of the plurality of levels; and for each of at least some of the plurality of levels of said at least one risk other than the highest of the plurality of levels, an indication of whether risk containment benefits of completing the document corresponding to said document name for a project having a risk at the said level of risk other than the highest of the plurality of levels is worth an effort of completing said document; as well as the assignment of document names and project names (as highlighted in the table above). The portion of the specification in the ‘ 656 Patent that supports the recited aspects of a document identifier and the assigning aspects, as well as the indication of whether filling out the at least one document outweighs the cost of filling out the at least one document for each level of risk of the highest of the plurality levels aspects includes an embodiment that would anticipate instant claim 1 herein. Instant claim 1 cannot be considered patentably distinct over claim 1 of the ‘ 656 Patent when there is a specifically disclosed embodiment that supports claim 1 of that patent and falls within the scope of claim 1 herein because it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of claim 1 by selecting a specifically disclosed embodiment that supports that claim, i.e., the document identifier and assigning steps . One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because that embodiment is disclosed as being a preferred embodiment within claim 1. Claims 7-8 recite substantially similar subject matter as claims 2 and 12 of the ‘656 patent regarding the concept of a lifecycle for a document and thus are also rejected for the same rationale. Claims 1 , 7, and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of Application No. 12/586,240 (now Patent No. 11,308,434) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct as shown below: 18/365,525 12/586,240 1. A system for configuring a meeting server to set up a meeting, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that when executed cause the system to perform receiving a plurality of risk categories for a project, a plurality of risks for each of the plurality of risk categories, and a plurality of scenarios for each of the plurality of risks, each scenario of the plurality of scenarios corresponding to one of a plurality of levels of the risk, providing a list of assigned documents for the project and a risk score for the project, the providing including, for each risk of the plurality of risks, receiving at least one document configured to contain the risk of the plurality of risks at a highest of the plurality of levels of risk, receiving an indication of whether filling out the at least one document outweighs a cost of filling out the at least one document for each level of risk other than the highest of the plurality of levels of risk , receiving an identification of a scenario of the plurality of scenarios that most closely corresponds to the project for the risk, adding, to the list of assigned documents, the at least one document if the identified scenario is the highest of the plurality of levels of the risk, adding, to the list of assigned documents, the at least one document if the at least one document outweighs the cost of filling out the at least one document if the scenario is a level of risk other than the highest of the plurality of levels of risk, and adding a score for the identified scenario to the risk score for the project, and arranging a meeting in response to the risk score exceeding a risk score threshold. 1. A system for configuring a meeting server to set up a meeting, comprising: a risk name receiver comprising a hardware computer processor system coupled to a memory system, and having an input for receiving, for each of risk category in a plurality, names of each of a plurality of risks, the risk name receiver for providing the risk names at an output; a scenario receiver comprising the hardware computer processor system coupled to the memory system, and having an input coupled to the risk name receiver output for receiving the plurality of risk names, and additionally for receiving for each of the plurality of risks corresponding to the risk names, a plurality of scenarios, each said scenario corresponding to a different one of a plurality of levels of said risk, the scenario receiver for providing the plurality of scenarios, associated with the risk names at an output ; a project information receipt manager comprising the hardware computer processor system coupled to the memory system, and having an input coupled to the risk name receiver for receiving the plurality of risk names, and for receiving from a user for each of the plurality of risks, an identifier of one of the plurality of scenarios for said risk that most closely corresponds to a project, the project information receipt manager for providing at an output the plurality of risk names, and for each risk name, the identifier of the scenario for said risk received at the project information receipt manager input; a score assignor having an input coupled to the project information receipt manager output, for receiving the plurality of risk names, and for each risk name, the identifier of the scenario for said risk, the score assignor for assigning a score responsive to the plurality of risk names, and for each risk name, the identifier of the scenario for said risk, and for providing the score at an output ; and a score threshold manager having an input coupled to the score assignor output for receiving the score, the score threshold manager for causing a meeting server having an input coupled to a score threshold manager output to arrange a meeting responsive to the score exceeding a threshold The independent claim 1 of the Application No. 12/586,240 (now Patent No. 11,308,434, hereinafter ‘434 Patent) are not identical to the instant claim 1 but however claim the same inventive concept arranging a meeting based upon document risk within a project (the instant claims are much more broad). Here, specifically, instant claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the ‘434 Patent . The claims differ in that instant claim 1 recites that the receiving of an indication of whether filling out the at least one document outweighs a cost of filling out the at least one document for each level of risk other than the highest of the plurality of levels of risk whereas claim 1 of the ‘434 Patent does not recite such a limitation but also recites receiving of some sort of scenario, having an input coupled to the risk name receiver output for receiving the plurality of risk names, and additionally for receiving for each of the plurality of risks corresponding to the risk names, a plurality of scenarios, each said scenario corresponding to a different one of a plurality of levels of said risk, the scenario receiver for providing the plurality of scenarios, associated with the risk names at an output; as well as assigning a score responsive to the plurality of risk names, and for each risk name, the identifier of the scenario for said risk, and for providing the score at an output (as highlighted in the table above). The portion of the specification in the ‘434 Patent that supports the recited a scenario identifier and the assigning aspects, as well as the indication of whether filling out the at least one document outweighs the cost of filling out the at least one document for each level of risk of the highest of the plurality levels aspects includes an embodiment that would anticipate instant claim 1 herein. Instant claim 1 cannot be considered patentably distinct over claim 1 of the ‘434 Patent when there is a specifically disclosed embodiment that supports claim 1 of that patent and falls within the scope of claim 1 herein because it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of claim 1 by selecting a specifically disclosed embodiment that supports that claim, i.e., the document identifier and assigning steps. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because that embodiment is disclosed as being a preferred embodiment within claim 1. Claims 7-8 recite substantially similar subject matter as claim 2 of the ‘ 434 patent regarding the concept of a lifecycle for a document and thus are also rejected for the same rationale. 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 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a process (an act, or series of acts or steps), a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), and a manufacture (an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories ( Step 1 ). The claims recite a system , however, the claim(s) recite(s) arranging a meeting based upon a risk score of a project and documents thereof which is an abstract idea of a mental process as well as the abstract idea of organizing human activities . The limitations of “ adding, to the list of assigned documents, the at least one document if the identified scenario is the highest of the plurality of levels of the risk, adding, to the list of assigned documents, the at least one document if the at least one document outweighs the cost of filling out the at least one document if the scenario is a level of risk other than the highest of the plurality of levels of risk, and adding a score for the identified scenario to the risk score for the project, and arranging a meeting in response to the risk score exceeding a risk score threshold ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or organizing human activities--fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components ( Step 2A Prong 1 ). That is, other than reciting “ A system for configuring a meeting server to set up a meeting, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that when executed cause the system to perform ,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or from the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. For example, but for the “ A system for configuring a meeting server to set up a meeting, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that when executed cause the system to perform ” language, “ adding,” “adding,” and “arranging ” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually assessing risk associated with documents and projects and comparing to the threshold which is a mental process/judgement or business relation/fundamental economic practice/commercial or legal interaction/managing personal behavior of ascertaining risk and subsequently arranging a meeting . However, if possible, the Examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos , 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, the limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mathematical concept, while some of the limitations may be performed in the mind after certain limitations are performed, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the grouping of abstract ideas. ( Step 2A, Prong One: YES ). Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application ( Step 2A Prong Two ). the “receiving...” steps are all insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities. Next , the claim only recites one additional element – using at least one processor and at least one memory to perform the steps. The at least one processor and at least one memory in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of basic arithmetic such as assigning or calculating a score and comparing to a threshold ) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole ( Step 2A Prong Two: NO ). The claim does not include a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception ( Step 2B ). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application ( Step 2A Prong 2 ), the combination of additional elements of using at least one processor and at least one memory to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. R eevaluating here in step 2B, the “receiving...” step(s) which are insignificant extrasolution activities are also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec , TLI , and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that the mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as is here). Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim. As such, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole ( Step 2B: NO ). Claims 2-3 and 6 recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further limiting the documents received from a user, which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claim 1 , the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B . Claims 4-5 recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further limiting the types or levels of risk, which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claim 1, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B . Claims 7-8 recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further limiting the project to include a lifecycle, which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claim 1, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B . Claim 9 recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further include performing the same steps of claim 1 but with an updated document, which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claim 1, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B . Claims 1-9 are therefore not eligible subject matter , even when considered as a whole. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (additional art can be located on the PTO-892): Scott (US Patent No. 7,756,816) System And Method For Network-based Project Management. Mora et al. (US Patent No. 6,161,113) Computer-aided Project Notebook. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANDREW B WHITAKER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7563 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 8am-5pm, EST . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Lynda Jasmin can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6782 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ANDREW B WHITAKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629