DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed 02/02/2026.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant submits on page 14 of the remarks that the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception or abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A prong 2. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the present claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a matter that imposes meaningful limit to the judicial exception.
Applicant submits on page 15 of the remarks that the amended claim recites an improvement over existing technology for task management. Examiner notes that in order to determine if an invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology and integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, while the courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, MPEP 2106.04(a) and 2106.05(a) provide guidance, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement; second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. When looking at the specification, there is no support for any technological improvement but rather to the abstract idea of managing tasks.
Applicant submits on page 16 that when considered as a whole, the amended claim amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner notes that when determining whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B the analysis takes into consideration whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines." Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 658, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972)). See MPEP 2106.05(c). Furthermore, the additional elements recited in the claims merely recite the use of a generic computer to perform generic computer functions of storing and transmitting data. These generic computer functions do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-20, the independent claims (claims 1, 8 and 17) are directed, in part, to a method and a system for managing tasks. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the eligibility analysis, claims 1-16 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process and claims 17-20 are directed to a system which falls under the statutory category of a machine. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to receiving a plurality of event records from an event service, each respective event record associated with a user and originating at an event source; determining whether an event record of the plurality of event records corresponds to a task for the user; in accordance with a determination that the event record corresponds to a task for the user: extracting content from the event record; generating a task item for the task, the task item including the extracted content; and storing… the task item in association with the user; analyzing at least one of the task item or the event record to identify, independent of the event source, a software application associated with the task; selecting, based at least in part on the identified software application, a task category for the task item, the task category selected from a set of candidate task categories and associated with at least two task items, the at least two task items comprising the task item; determining a task category rank for the task item, the task category rank defining a ranking of the task item relative to other task items of the at least two task items; allocating the task item to a user-specified task-category block of a set of user-specified task-category blocks associated with the selected task category, the allocation based at least in part on the task category rank of the task item and stored in the database; and causing display of a representation of the task item in a task item object of a task management graphical user interface in accordance with the task category rank of the task item; causing display of a calendar graphical user interface comprising: a task category identifier object corresponding to the task category; and a calendar object including a first task category block object at a first location in the calendar object corresponding to a first date and time, wherein: the first task category block object corresponds to the task category; and the at least two task items comprising the task item are allocated to the task category in the database, the allocation stored in the database; and receiving a user input corresponding to a drag and drop input, the drag and drop input corresponding to a request to move the task category identifier object to a second location in the calendar object corresponding to a second date and time; and in response to the drag and drop input corresponding to the request to move the task category identifier object to the second location: causing display of a second task category block object at the second location, the second task category block object corresponding to the task category; and based at least on the second date and time associated with the second location and the task category ranks for the at least two task items, reallocating at least a portion of the at least two task items to the second task category block object to conform to the task category ranks of the at least two task items. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements: a software application, a graphical user interface, an event service, an event record, an event source, computer system, processor, a trained categorization model, training data. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figure 1A and related text and [0130-0133] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “The processing unit 602 can be implemented as any electronic device capable of processing, receiving, or transmitting data or instructions. For example, the processing unit 602 can be a microprocessor, a central processing unit (CPU), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a digital signal processor (DSP), or combinations of such devices. As described herein, the term "processing unit" is meant to encompass a single processor or processing unit, multiple processors, multiple processing units, or other suitably configured computing element or elements. It should be noted that the components of the electronic device 600 can be controlled by multiple processing units. For example, select components of the electronic device 600 (e.g., an input device 606) may be controlled by a first processing unit and other components of the electronic device 600 (e.g., the display 608) may be controlled by a second processing unit, where the first and second processing units may or may not be in communication with each other. The power source 612 can be implemented with any device capable of providing energy to the electronic device 600. For example, the power source 612 may be one or more batteries or rechargeable batteries. Additionally, or alternatively, the power source 612 can be a power connector or power cord that connects the electronic device 600 to another power source, such as a wall outlet. The memory 604 can store electronic data that can be used by the electronic device 600. For example, the memory 604 can store electronic data or content such as, for example, audio and video files, documents and applications, device settings and user preferences, timing signals, control signals, and data structures or databases. The memory 604 can be configured as any type of memory. By way of example only, the memory 604 can be implemented as random access memory, read-only memory, Flash memory, removable memory, other types of storage elements, or combinations of such devices.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
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, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2020/0175449 (hereinafter; Lehmann) in view of US Pub. No. 2023/0377732 (hereinafter; Raines) further in view of US Pub. No. 2012/0060166 (hereinafter; Jardine)
Regarding claim 1, Lehmann discloses:
A method comprising: in accordance with a determination that the event record corresponds to a task for the user: extracting content from the event record; generating a task item for the task, the task item including the extracted content; (Lehmann [0068] discloses The task management 318 can also communicate with the content database 322 and the task instances database 320.)analyzing at least one of the task item or the event record to identify, independent of the event source, a software application associated with the task; (Lehmann discloses client applications and cloud-based applications in at least [0020].)selecting, based at least in part on the identified software application, a task category for the task item, the task category selected from a set of candidate task categories and associated with at least two task items, the at least two task items comprising the task item; (Lehmann discloses task categories and ranking. See at least [0004]; [0008]; [0035].) determining a task category rank for the task item, the task category rank defining a ranking of the task item relative to other task items of the at least two task items; (Lehmann discloses task categories and ranking. See at least [0004]; [0008]; [0035].) allocating the task item to a user-specified task-category block of a set of user-specified task-category blocks associated with the selected task category, the allocation based at least in part on the task category rank of the task item and stored in the database; (Lehman [0018] discloses input from a user device.) and causing display of a representation of the task item in a task item object of a task management graphical user interface in accordance with the task category rank of the task item; (Lehmann discloses task categories and ranking. See at least [0004]; [0008]; [0035].)
Although Lehman discloses systems and methods for managing task items, Lehman does not specifically disclose event records. However, Raines discloses the following limitations:
receiving a plurality of event records from an event service, each respective event record associated with a user and originating at an event source; (Raines [0043] discloses The client systems 315A and 315B and user devices 320A-320F and 325A-325C can provide to the incident and event reporting system 305 incident or event data to be maintained by the incident and event management system 305 in a set of incident or event records 330, e.g., in a database or other repository.) determining whether an event record of the plurality of event records corresponds to a task for the user; (Raines [0047] discloses Follow-up management can be performed 410 by the incident and event management system 305. More specifically, after an incident or event is reported, the information obtained through the reporting form 335 and saved as an incident and event record 330 can be reviewed and a follow-up action plan can be formed and initiated accordingly. This review can be conducted by a human user, an automated process such as workflow 340, or a combination of a human user assisted or guided by an automated process. For example, when an event is initially reported, a reviewer can be informed, e.g., by an automatic email notification and/or an alert on an application dashboard. The dashboard can be presented using one or more forms 335 which, as noted above, can be customized for the client to which they are presented. Such a real-time dashboard presented in a user interface such as a web page, for example, by the incident and event management system 305 can give the reviewer a list of any events reported as well as their current status. An event can be automatically “flagged” when submission based on certain information provided in the event report. After examining the event report, the reviewer can then assign follow-up tasks to team members.) and storing in a database including a plurality of task items, the task item in association with the user; (Raines [0055] discloses performing follow-up management on the report of the incident or event can comprise notifying 605 a responsible entity of the report of the incident or event; The incident or event data stored in the electronic incident or event record can then be reviewed 610 by the responsible entity.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for task listing of Lehmann with the system for event reporting of Raines in order to manage incidents and events (Raines abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Although Lehman discloses systems and methods for managing task items, Lehman does not specifically disclose display of a calendar with tasks allocation. However, Jardine discloses the following limitations:
causing display of a calendar graphical user interface comprising: a task category identifier object corresponding to the task category; (Jardine [0039] discloses The "show in calendar" option allows the user to provide the display of the task list in the calendar, integrated into the time slots that have been allocated.) and a calendar object including a first task category block object at a first location in the calendar object corresponding to a first date and time, wherein: the first task category block object corresponds to the task category; (Jardine [0041] discloses Every new event, and task, must be associated with a calendar category.) and the at least two task items comprising the task item are allocated to the task category in the database, the allocation stored in the database; (Jardine [0039] discloses The "show in calendar" option allows the user to provide the display of the task list in the calendar, integrated into the time slots that have been allocated. The user may choose to put this option on or off. Putting the option "Off" will remove tasks from display in the calendar, but will not remove events from calculation in the determination of time allocated to those tasks in the Task View. "Move in calendar" option allows a user to move tasks in the calendar by manually dragging them with a fingertip or mouse.) and receiving a user input corresponding to a drag and drop input, the drag and drop input corresponding to a request to move the task category identifier object to a second location in the calendar object corresponding to a second date and time; (Jardine [0039] discloses "Move in calendar" option allows a user to move tasks in the calendar by manually dragging them with a fingertip or mouse. The action of moving a task in the calendar forces the task into a specific time and therefore automatically converts that task into an event.) and in response to the drag and drop input corresponding to the request to move the task category identifier object to the second location: causing display of a second task category block object at the second location, the second task category block object corresponding to the task category; (Jardine [0039] discloses "Move in calendar" option allows a user to move tasks in the calendar by manually dragging them with a fingertip or mouse. The action of moving a task in the calendar forces the task into a specific time and therefore automatically converts that task into an event.) and based at least on the second date and time associated with the second location and the task category ranks for the at least two task items, reallocating at least a portion of the at least two task items to the second task category block object to conform to the task category ranks of the at least two task items. (Jardine [0039] The action of moving a task in the calendar forces the task into a specific time and therefore automatically converts that task into an event. When a task is converted into an event, it is removed from the task list and instead becomes a part of the calculation of event times that are used to determine the remaining time that can be allocated to tasks. The user may convert this event--or any event, for that matter--back into a task simply by going to the edit screen and selecting "task" rather than "event." Converting an event into a task places it into the task list and removes that event from the Calendar. The then-created task may or may not show up in the Calendar as a task, depending upon its priority in the task list and whether time can be allocated for the task.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for task listing of Lehmann with the integrated calendar of Jardine in order to allocate tasks (Jardine abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claim 2, Lehmann discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the event record is a first event record; the task is a first task; the task item is a first task item; the content is first content; and the method further comprises: in accordance with a determination that a second event record corresponds to a second task that is different than the first task, generating and storing a second task item for the second task; and in accordance with a determination that the second event record corresponds to the first task: extracting second content from the second event record; generating a third task item for the first task, the third task item including the extracted second content; storing the third task item in association with the user; and causing a representation of the third task item to be displayed in the task item object in association with the first task item. (Lehmann [0068] discloses The task management 318 can also communicate with the content database 322 and the task instances database 320; [0044-0045] disclose a display. See also Fig. 1.)
Regarding claim 3, although Lehman discloses systems and methods for managing task items, Lehman does not specifically disclose event records. However, Raines discloses the following limitations:
The method of claim 2, further comprising, in response to receiving an indication of completion of the first task item, removing the representations of the first task item and the second task item from the task item object. (Raines [0057] discloses completion of the tasks.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for task listing of Lehmann with the system for event reporting of Raines in order to manage incidents and events (Raines abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claim 4, Lehmann discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the event record is a first event record; the content is first content; and the method further comprises, in accordance with a determination that a second event record corresponds to a same task as the first event record: extracting second content from the second event record; storing the extracted second content in the task item; and causing the extracted second content to be displayed in the task item object in the representation of the task item. (Lehmann [0068] discloses The task management 318 can also communicate with the content database 322 and the task instances database 320.)
Regarding claim 5, Lehmann discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein: a plurality of task items are associated with the selected task category, each respective task item in the plurality of task items associated with a respective task category rank; and the method further comprises: in response to a user creating the user-specified task-category block for the selected task category in a calendar object of the graphical user interface, assigning respective task items of at least a subset of the plurality of task items to the user-specified task-category block; and displaying the assigned subset of the plurality of task items in the task item object in accordance with their respective task category ranks. (Lehmann discloses task categories and ranking. See at least [0004]; [0008]; [0035].)
Regarding claim 6, Lehmann discloses:
The method of claim 5, wherein: the user-specified task-category block is a first user-specified task-category block; the subset of the plurality of task items is a first subset of the plurality of task items; and the method further comprises: in response to a user creating a second user-specified task-category block for the selected task category in a calendar object of the graphical user interface, assigning respective task items of at least a second subset of the plurality of task items to the second user-specified task-category block; and displaying the assigned second subset of the plurality of task items in the task item object in accordance with their respective task category ranks. (Lehmann discloses task categories and ranking. See at least [0004]; [0008]; [0035].)
Regarding claim 7, Lehmann discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the task is a first task; the first task corresponds to a first operation for an issue of an issue tracking system; the event record is a first event record; the task item is a first task item; the task category is a first task category; and the method further comprises, in accordance with a determination that a second event record corresponds to a second operation for the same issue as the first task, the second operation from the first operation: generating a second task item for the second operation; and selecting, based at least in part on the second operation, a second task category for the second task item, the second task category different from the first task category. (Lehmann discloses task categories and ranking. See at least [0004]; [0008]; [0035].)
Regarding claim 17, Lehmann discloses:
A computer system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: in accordance with a determination that the event record corresponds to a task for the user: extracting content from the event record; generating a task item for the task, the task item including the extracted content; (Lehmann [0068] discloses The task management 318 can also communicate with the content database 322 and the task instances database 320.) analyzing at least one of the task item or the event record to identify, independent of the event source, a software application associated with the task; (Lehmann discloses client applications and cloud-based applications in at least [0020].) selecting, based at least in part on the identified software application, a task category for the task item, the task category selected from a set of candidate task categories and associated with at least two task items, the at least two task items comprising the task item; (Lehmann discloses task categories and ranking. See at least [0004]; [0008]; [0035].) determining a task category rank for the task item, the task category rank defining a ranking of the task item relative to other task items of the at least two task items; (Lehmann discloses task categories and ranking. See at least [0004]; [0008]; [0035].) allocating the task item to a user-specified task-category block of a set of user-specified task-category blocks associated with the selected task category, the allocation based at least in part on the task category rank of the task item and stored in the database; (Lehman [0018] discloses input from a user device.) and causing display of a representation of the task item in a task item object of a task management graphical user interface in accordance with the task category rank of the task item. (Lehmann discloses task categories and ranking. See at least [0004]; [0008]; [0035].)
Although Lehman discloses systems and methods for managing task items, Lehman does not specifically disclose event records. However, Raines discloses the following limitations:
receiving a plurality of event records from an event service, each respective event record associated with a user and originating at an event source; (Raines [0043] discloses The client systems 315A and 315B and user devices 320A-320F and 325A-325C can provide to the incident and event reporting system 305 incident or event data to be maintained by the incident and event management system 305 in a set of incident or event records 330, e.g., in a database or other repository.) determining whether an event record of the plurality of event records corresponds to a task for the user; (Raines [0047] discloses Follow-up management can be performed 410 by the incident and event management system 305. More specifically, after an incident or event is reported, the information obtained through the reporting form 335 and saved as an incident and event record 330 can be reviewed and a follow-up action plan can be formed and initiated accordingly. This review can be conducted by a human user, an automated process such as workflow 340, or a combination of a human user assisted or guided by an automated process. For example, when an event is initially reported, a reviewer can be informed, e.g., by an automatic email notification and/or an alert on an application dashboard. The dashboard can be presented using one or more forms 335 which, as noted above, can be customized for the client to which they are presented. Such a real-time dashboard presented in a user interface such as a web page, for example, by the incident and event management system 305 can give the reviewer a list of any events reported as well as their current status. An event can be automatically “flagged” when submission based on certain information provided in the event report. After examining the event report, the reviewer can then assign follow-up tasks to team members.) and storing in a database including a plurality of task items, the task item in association with the user; (Raines [0055] discloses performing follow-up management on the report of the incident or event can comprise notifying 605 a responsible entity of the report of the incident or event; The incident or event data stored in the electronic incident or event record can then be reviewed 610 by the responsible entity.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for task listing of Lehmann with the system for event reporting of Raines in order to manage incidents and events (Raines abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Although Lehman discloses systems and methods for managing task items, Lehman does not specifically disclose display of a calendar with tasks allocation. However, Jardine discloses the following limitations:
causing display of a calendar graphical user interface comprising: a task category identifier object corresponding to the task category; (Jardine [0039] discloses The "show in calendar" option allows the user to provide the display of the task list in the calendar, integrated into the time slots that have been allocated.) and a calendar object including a first task category block object at a first location in the calendar object corresponding to a first date and time, wherein: the first task category block object corresponds to the task category; (Jardine [0041] discloses Every new event, and task, must be associated with a calendar category.) and the at least two task items comprising the task item are allocated to the task category in the database, the allocation stored in the database; (Jardine [0039] discloses The "show in calendar" option allows the user to provide the display of the task list in the calendar, integrated into the time slots that have been allocated. The user may choose to put this option on or off. Putting the option "Off" will remove tasks from display in the calendar, but will not remove events from calculation in the determination of time allocated to those tasks in the Task View. "Move in calendar" option allows a user to move tasks in the calendar by manually dragging them with a fingertip or mouse.) and receiving a user input corresponding to a drag and drop input, the drag and drop input corresponding to a request to move the task category identifier object to a second location in the calendar object corresponding to a second date and time; (Jardine [0039] discloses "Move in calendar" option allows a user to move tasks in the calendar by manually dragging them with a fingertip or mouse. The action of moving a task in the calendar forces the task into a specific time and therefore automatically converts that task into an event.) and in response to the drag and drop input corresponding to the request to move the task category identifier object to the second location: causing display of a second task category block object at the second location, the second task category block object corresponding to the task category; (Jardine [0039] discloses "Move in calendar" option allows a user to move tasks in the calendar by manually dragging them with a fingertip or mouse. The action of moving a task in the calendar forces the task into a specific time and therefore automatically converts that task into an event.) and based at least on the second date and time associated with the second location and the task category ranks for the at least two task items, reallocating at least a portion of the at least two task items to the second task category block object to conform to the task category ranks of the at least two task items. (Jardine [0039] The action of moving a task in the calendar forces the task into a specific time and therefore automatically converts that task into an event. When a task is converted into an event, it is removed from the task list and instead becomes a part of the calculation of event times that are used to determine the remaining time that can be allocated to tasks. The user may convert this event--or any event, for that matter--back into a task simply by going to the edit screen and selecting "task" rather than "event." Converting an event into a task places it into the task list and removes that event from the Calendar. The then-created task may or may not show up in the Calendar as a task, depending upon its priority in the task list and whether time can be allocated for the task.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for task listing of Lehmann with the integrated calendar of Jardine in order to allocate tasks (Jardine abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claim 19, Lehman discloses:
The computer system of claim 17 wherein: a plurality of task items are associated with the selected task category, each respective task item in the plurality of task items associated with a respective task category rank; and the instructions further include instructions that cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: in response to a user creating the user-specified task-category block for the selected task category in a calendar object of the graphical user interface, assigning respective task items of at least a subset of the plurality of task items to the user-specified task-category block; and displaying the assigned subset of the plurality of task items in the task item object in accordance with their respective task category ranks. (Lehmann discloses task categories and ranking. See at least [0004]; [0008]; [0035].)
Regarding claim 20, Lehmann discloses:
The computer system of claim 19, wherein: the user-specified task-category block is a first user-specified task-category block; the subset of the plurality of task items is a first subset of the plurality of task items; and the instructions further include instructions that cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: in response to a user creating a second user-specified task-category block for the selected task category in a calendar object of the graphical user interface, assigning respective task items of at least a second subset of the plurality of task items to the second user-specified task-category block; and displaying the assigned second subset of the plurality of task items in the task item object in accordance with their respective task category ranks. (Lehmann discloses task assignments in at least [0002]; [0074-0076].)
Claim(s) 8-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann in view of Raines further in view of US Pub. No. 2022/0357807 (hereinafter; Udall) further in view of Jardine.
Regarding claim 8, Lehmann discloses:
A method comprising: in accordance with a determination that the event record corresponds to a task for the user: extracting content from the event record; generating a task item for the task, the task item including the extracted content; (Lehmann [0068] discloses The task management 318 can also communicate with the content database 322 and the task instances database 320.) determining a task category rank for the task item, the task category rank defining a ranking of the task item relative to other task items in the selected task category; (Lehmann discloses task categories and ranking. See at least [0004]; [0008]; [0035].) allocating the task item to a user-specified task-category block of a set of user-specified task-category blocks associated with the selected task category, the allocation based at least in part on the task category rank of the task item and stored in the database; (Lehman [0018] discloses input from a user device.) and causing display a representation of the task item in a task item object of a task management graphical user interface in accordance with the task category rank of the task item. (Lehmann discloses task categories and ranking. See at least [0004]; [0008]; [0035].)
the selected task category associated with at least two task items, the at least two task items comprising the task item; (Lehmann discloses task categories and ranking. See at least [0004]; [0008]; [0035].)
Although Lehman discloses systems and methods for managing task items, Lehman does not specifically disclose event records. However, Raines discloses the following limitations:
receiving a plurality of event records from an event service, each respective event record associated with a user and originating at an event source; (Raines [0043] discloses The client systems 315A and 315B and user devices 320A-320F and 325A-325C can provide to the incident and event reporting system 305 incident or event data to be maintained by the incident and event management system 305 in a set of incident or event records 330, e.g., in a database or other repository.) determining whether an event record of the plurality of event records corresponds to a task for the user; (Raines [0047] discloses Follow-up management can be performed 410 by the incident and event management system 305. More specifically, after an incident or event is reported, the information obtained through the reporting form 335 and saved as an incident and event record 330 can be reviewed and a follow-up action plan can be formed and initiated accordingly. This review can be conducted by a human user, an automated process such as workflow 340, or a combination of a human user assisted or guided by an automated process. For example, when an event is initially reported, a reviewer can be informed, e.g., by an automatic email notification and/or an alert on an application dashboard. The dashboard can be presented using one or more forms 335 which, as noted above, can be customized for the client to which they are presented. Such a real-time dashboard presented in a user interface such as a web page, for example, by the incident and event management system 305 can give the reviewer a list of any events reported as well as their current status. An event can be automatically “flagged” when submission based on certain information provided in the event report. After examining the event report, the reviewer can then assign follow-up tasks to team members.) and storing, in a database including a plurality of task items, the task item in association with the user; (Raines [0055] discloses performing follow-up management on the report of the incident or event can comprise notifying 605 a responsible entity of the report of the incident or event; The incident or event data stored in the electronic incident or event record can then be reviewed 610 by the responsible entity.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for task listing of Lehmann with the system for event reporting of Raines in order to manage incidents and events (Raines abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Although Lehman discloses systems and methods for managing task items, Lehman does not specifically disclose a categorization model. However, Udall discloses the following limitations:
providing the task item as input to a trained categorization model, the trained categorization model trained with training data generated from a set of respective sample task items each associated with a respective sample task category of a plurality of task categories; (Udall discloses event category models in at least [00160-0168])
assigning the task item to a selected task category based on output from the trained categorization model; (Udall discloses training a model in at least 0155-0158].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for task listing of Lehmann with the trained model of Udall in order to provide a confidence level to a user operating a device (Udall [0007]) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Although Lehman discloses systems and methods for managing task items, Lehman does not specifically disclose display of a calendar with tasks allocation. However, Jardine discloses the following limitations:
causing display of a calendar graphical user interface comprising: a task category identifier object corresponding to the task category; (Jardine [0039] discloses The "show in calendar" option allows the user to provide the display of the task list in the calendar, integrated into the time slots that have been allocated.) and a calendar object including a first task category block object at a first location in the calendar object corresponding to a first date and time, wherein: the first task category block object corresponds to the task category; (Jardine [0041] discloses Every new event, and task, must be associated with a calendar category.) and the at least two task items comprising the task item are allocated to the task category in the database, the allocation stored in the database; (Jardine [0039] discloses The "show in calendar" option allows the user to provide the display of the task list in the calendar, integrated into the time slots that have been allocated. The user may choose to put this option on or off. Putting the option "Off" will remove tasks from display in the calendar, but will not remove events from calculation in the determination of time allocated to those tasks in the Task View. "Move in calendar" option allows a user to move tasks in the calendar by manually dragging them with a fingertip or mouse.) and receiving a user input corresponding to a drag and drop input, the drag and drop input corresponding to a request to move the task category identifier object to a second location in the calendar object corresponding to a second date and time; (Jardine [0039] discloses "Move in calendar" option allows a user to move tasks in the calendar by manually dragging them with a fingertip or mouse. The action of moving a task in the calendar forces the task into a specific time and therefore automatically converts that task into an event.) and in response to the drag and drop input corresponding to the request to move the task category identifier object to the second location: causing display of a second task category block object at the second location, the second task category block object corresponding to the task category; (Jardine [0039] discloses "Move in calendar" option allows a user to move tasks in the calendar by manually dragging them with a fingertip or mouse. The action of moving a task in the calendar forces the task into a specific time and therefore automatically converts that task into an event.) and based at least on the second date and time associated with the second location and the task category ranks for the at least two task items, reallocating at least a portion of the at least two task items to the second task category block object to conform to the task category ranks of the at least two task items. (Jardine [0039] The action of moving a task in the calendar forces the task into a specific time and therefore automatically converts that task into an event. When a task is converted into an event, it is removed from the task list and instead becomes a part of the calculation of event times that are used to determine the remaining time that can be allocated to tasks. The user may convert this event--or any event, for that matter--back into a task simply by going to the edit screen and selecting "task" rather than "event." Converting an event into a task places it into the task list and removes that event from the Calendar. The then-created task may or may not show up in the Calendar as a task, depending upon its priority in the task list and whether time can be allocated for the task.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for task listing of Lehmann with the integrated calendar of Jardine in order to allocate tasks (Jardine abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claim 9, Lehmann discloses:
The method of claim 8, wherein: the event record is a first event record; the task is a first task; the task item is a first task item; and the method further comprises: generating and storing a second task item for a second task different from the first task; in response to an assignment input from the user, associating the second task item with a second task category; and retraining the trained categorization model using updated training data that includes the second task item associated with the second task category. (Lehmann [0068] discloses The task management 318 can also communicate with the content database 322 and the task instances database 320; [0018] discloses input from a user device.)
Regarding claim 10, Lehman discloses:
The method of claim 9, wherein the task is performable, by the user, on a software application that is different from the event source. (Lehmann [0068] discloses The task management 318 can also communicate with the content database 322 and the task instances database 320; [0044-0045] disclose a display. See also Fig. 1.)
Regarding claim 11, Lehmann discloses:
The method of claim 10, wherein the software application is an issue tracking system. (Lehmann [0038-0039]; [0056] discloses relevance scores (i.e. tracking) for different computer issues.)
Regarding claim 12, Although Lehman discloses systems and methods for managing task items, Lehman does not specifically disclose a categorization model. However, Udall discloses the following limitations:
The method of claim 8, wherein: the event record is a first event record; the task is a first task; the task category is a first task category; the task item is a first task item; and the method further comprises: in accordance with a determination that a second event record different from the first event record corresponds to a second task for the user, generating and storing a second task item for the second task; providing the second task item as input to the trained categorization model; and assigning the second task item to a second task category based on output from the trained categorization model, the second task category different from the first task category. (Udall discloses event category models in at least [00160-0168]; (Udall discloses training a model in at least 0155-0158].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for task listing of Lehmann with the trained model of Udall in order to provide a confidence level to a user operating a device (Udall [0007]) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claim 13, Lehmann discloses:
The method of claim 12, wherein the first event record and the second event relate to different tasks for a same content item. (Lehmann [0068] discloses communication between the content database and the task instances database.)
Regarding claim 14, Lehmann discloses:
The method of claim 8, wherein: a plurality of task items are associated with the selected task category, each respective task item in the plurality of task items associated with a respective task category rank; and the method further comprises: in response to a user creating the user-specified task-category block for the selected task category in a calendar object of the graphical user interface, assigning respective task items of at least a subset of the plurality of task items to the user-specified task-category block; and displaying the assigned subset of the plurality of task items in accordance with their respective task category ranks. (Lehmann [0008] discloses selection data is received from the client device indicating of a selection of at least one category by the user to rank the task list in an inbox. The selection data is stored to use for generating the relevance scores for each of the tasks included in the task list.)
Regarding claim 15, Lehmann discloses:
The method of claim 8, wherein the user-specified task-category block includes a user- defined start time and a user-defined duration. (Lehmann [0002] disclose tasks that need to be accomplished by a defined period of time or by a deadline.)
Regarding claim 16, Lehmann discloses:
The method of claim 8, wherein: the user-specified task-category block is a first user-specified task-category block and includes a first user-defined start time and a first user-defined duration; and the set of user-specified task-category blocks comprises a second user-specified task- category block, the second user-specified task-category block including a second user-defined start time different from the first user-defined start time and a second user-defined duration different from the first user-defined duration. (Lehmann [0002] disclose tasks that need to be accomplished by a defined period of time or by a deadline; [0034] discloses For example, the tasks can include fixing a known problem, […] entering in time for a timesheet […])
Regarding claim 18, Although Lehman discloses systems and methods for managing task items, Lehman does not specifically disclose a categorization model. However, Udall discloses the following limitations:
The computer system of claim 17, wherein: the task item is a first task item; and the instructions further include instructions that cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: providing a second task item as input to a trained categorization model, the trained categorization model trained with training data generated from a set of respective sample task items each associated with a respective sample task category of a plurality of task categories; and assigning the second task item to a second selected task category based on output from the trained categorization model. (Udall discloses event category models in at least [00160-0168]; (Udall discloses training a model in at least 0155-0158].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for task listing of Lehmann with the trained model of Udall in order to provide a confidence level to a user operating a device (Udall [0007]) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Conclusion
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 FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm 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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights