DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 9/24/2025.
Claims 1, 9, 13, and 16 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 8 has been canceled.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Preliminary Matters
The present claim amendments are non-compliant with the requirements set forth in 37 CFR 1.121 regarding the manner of making amendments in applications. Specifically, Claim 8 is listed with the identifier “(Cancel),” which does not comport with the list of acceptable identifiers found in 37 CFR 1.121(c). In the interest of compact prosecution and in light of Applicant’s intent here being clear, Examiner chooses to treat the identifier of Claim 8 as “(Canceled),” and thus treats the present claim amendments as compliant.
Objections
The present cancellation of Claim 8 obviates the previous objection thereto; therefore, this objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The present cancellation of Claim 8 obviates the previous 112(b) and 112(d) rejections thereto; therefore, these rejections are withdrawn.
The present amendments to Claim 13 obviate the previous 112(b) rejection thereto; therefore, this rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant first makes the following Step 2A, Prong Two argument regarding what the claims are “directed to:” “[w]ithout acquiescing to the propriety of the rejection with respect to Step2A, Prong 1, the Assignee respectfully submits that claim 1, as amended, recites a combination of elements that integrate any abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, claim 1 is directed to a method that can cause display of a user interface that allows portal intake flows for an issue tracking system to be generated and a user to customize parameters of the portal intake flow, such as a request type and workflow, during the generation process. (Application para. [0045]).” This argument contains several foundational issues which render it unpersuasive before addressing the substance thereof.
Firstly, other than the passing reference to Step 2A, Prong One in the above-quoted language, the present arguments make no mention of Step 2A, Prong One or the standards thereof. This ignoring of the distinction between judicial exceptions (in this case, abstract ideas) and additional elements causes failings in this and all subsequent arguments, as both integration into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)) and embodiment of an inventive concept in Step 2B (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.05) may only occur by way of any recited additional elements or the combination thereof (ie: not merely any “elements” as in the above-quoted language, but only non-abstract additional elements), as opposed to any recited judicial exceptions. In ignoring this distinction, Applicant in part improperly relies on claimed abstract ideas in this and every presently presented 101 argument. The results of Step 2A, Prong Two are critical to the performance of both Steps 2A, Prong Two and 2B, and attempting to perform these steps absent consideration of Prong One (which, as best as Examiner can discern, is what Applicant does in the present arguments) results in improper application of legal standards and consequently results which are not in keeping with the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis.
Secondly, what a claim is “directed to” has particular meaning within the context of the 101 subject matter examination, and is determined in a particular way (ie: by accurately performing Step 2A, Prongs One and Two). What a claim is “directed to” is not merely some summary statement of some features of the present invention, nor how the present invention might be described (at least in part) in the original disclosure. So far as Examiner can see, Applicant makes no attempt to perform these analyses in order to determine what the claims are “directed to” within the meaning of the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis, but merely inserts Applicant’s own subjective description of at least part of the content of Claim 1.
Regarding the substance of the presently presented arguments, a significant portion of the content Applicant argues in the above-quoted language, supplemental parts of the same argument, and subsequent arguments represent abstract ideas rather than additional elements. For example, allowing intake flows for an issue tracking process, allowing a user to customize parameters for such an intake flow (e.g., a request type and workflow), previewing options for a workflow type that can be used in an issue tracking process, defining automated processes that are performed in the issue tracking process to advance or resolve an issue (e.g., by defining actions, statuses, and transitions that are used by the issue tracking process to track and process the issue, the incorporation of different workflow types which may be compatible or more suitable for specific request types (e.g., based on the process steps needed to advance or resolve an issue associated with a specific request type), utilizing a generative output (Examiner notes that the actual generation of this output as claimed via a generative engine is not abstract, but what is done with this output once it has been generated is abstract) to select workflow types for presenting to a user and/or to analyze data to identify the workflow types (e.g., use of user event logs or system usage logs may be used to compute a use metric for fields or other system objects) thereby identifying particular workflow types that are compatible with a particular request type and (purportedly) increase efficiency of the intake flow, providing dynamic previews of specific workflow types, identifying applicable workflow types based on analyzing data related to a specific selected request type, dynamically analyzing data and presenting results based on user input and/or changes thereto are all abstract ideas. As noted above, abstract ideas may not be used to integrate themselves into a practical application under the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis.
The only additional elements recited in the arguments addressed here are the performance of these abstract steps by way of computer elements (e.g., high-level computer and web-based implementation of these steps, the specific entering of a prompt into and receipt of a generative output from a generative engine, and the high-level display of various abstract options via various user interfaces utilizing tiles. In the context of the claims as a whole, each of these are considered mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (ie: using computers as tools to perform abstract ideas) under MPEP 2106.05(f), which has long been recognized as insufficient to show integration into a practical application (including by way of the seemingly implied improvement to a technology consideration – addressed in greater detail below).
Regarding the argued integration into a practical application, though Applicant fails to list any manner in which this is purportedly achieved in line with those set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d), Examiner’s best attempt to steelman this argument (in part based on further arguments regarding Example 37, carried forward by the most recent PEG Update) would be an invocation of the improvement to a technology consideration (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). Examiner finds consideration of this standard unpersuasive here. Particularly, Applicant asserts the “providing [of] a specialized user interface,” vaguely analogizing to the content of Example 37 absent any true fact-to-fact or reasoning-to-reasoning analyses. Rather, Applicant provides a single-sentence summary of Example 37 as eligible “on the grounds that the claim provided a specific improvement based on determining usage data and arranging icons based on the usage data,” and asserting that the present claims “include[] similar elements of selecting and displaying a second set of tiles corresponding to workflow types that were selected based on outputs from a generative output engine analyzing system data.”
Despite explicitly stating that Claim 1 of Example 37 was found eligible for “re-arranging graphical icons on a user interface based on usage,” this argument misapprehends the reason this functionality was found eligible and fails to provide functionality in the present claims which is in fact “similar” such that the application of 101 standards thereto would provide a similar result of eligibility. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) and myriad pieces of caselaw, the asserted “selecting and displaying” of information on a display (at least wherein the data displayed is abstract) is an abstract idea. While Examiner notes that the display of the computer element itself is a non-abstract additional element, this in the context of such selecting and displaying constitutes mere instructions to apply a judicial exception.
At its core, Applicant’s argument here misapprehends that it is not what a user interface displays (e.g., the icons of Example 37 or somewhat analogous tiles of the present application) that can embody an improvement to the technology of user interfaces, but rather how information is displayed by the user interface (ie: such that the functionality of the user interface itself is improved, e.g., the “specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems” of Example 37, or solving the technical problem of overlapping windows obscuring presented information therein in particular claims of Example 23). Removing the recited abstract ideas (e.g., the selection of what intake request types and workflow types to present to a user; presenting said intake request types and workflow types to present to the user) and considering only the additional elements in relation to this functionality, the presently claimed user interfaces function in the most basic and ubiquitous manner of user interfaces: they receive instructions regarding what information to present, and the interfaces present such information. Nothing in either the present arguments or the claims as presently drafted provides an improvement to user interface functionality akin to applicable claims of Examples 37 and 23.
Similarly, the incorporation of AI applications (such as the presently claimed generative engine and functionalities associated therewith) does not automatically confer subject matter eligibility. Such AI-based elements and functions are frequently used for abstract purposes and as such (in part) recite abstract ideas (as in the present claims – determining appropriate potential workflow types to present to a user based in part on parameters of an intake request type). As several Examples set forth in the July 2024 PEG Update make clear, even where the incorporation of such AI-based elements and functions do not directly confer eligibility (as here), the manner in which outputs of such AI elements may, e.g., if these outputs are used in subsequent steps to effectuate an improvement to a technology (see, e.g., the analysis of Example 47, Claim 3). Here, the outputs of the generative engine are used for entirely abstract purposes (ie: choosing workflow type options to present to a user for selection; presenting such workflow type options to the user). The claims do not embody an improvement to a technology, including the technology of user interfaces and otherwise.
Lastly, Applicant argues that the claims include “specialized processes” of largely abstract ideas, thereby providing a “technical advancement to the functioning of the system that amounts to more than the alleged judicial exception.” Applicant fails to articulate what purported “technical advancement” is achieved, or how it is tied to the presented list of largely abstract steps. Given the content of what is actually claimed and argued here, Examiner takes this as a “special purpose computer” test (of In re Alappat) argument, essentially arguing that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim for the "special purpose" of executing the algorithm or software. This test has not been good law for over a decade at this point, with In re Alappat and the “special purpose computer” test thereof having been superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions. Examiner finds no “technical advancement” to be embodied by the claims as presently drafted in light of the current 101 subject matter eligibility standards.
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 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations of receiving, at a first web-based service, a request to generate a new portal intake flow for a second web-based service; the first interface comprising: a first selection panel including a first set of options, each option corresponding to an intake request type for the second web-based service; a first preview panel including a dynamic preview of an intake interface for a selected option of the first set of options, the dynamic preview including a set of intake fields arranged in accordance with an intake form layout; in response to selecting an intake request type: causing generation of a prompt comprising predetermined prompt text and one or more parameters associated with the selected intake request type; in response to a prompt, obtaining a response defining one or more workflow types; the second interface comprising: a second selection panel including a second set of options, each option corresponding to a workflow type selected from the one or more workflow types and configured for processing an issue using the issue tracking system; a second preview panel including a schematic preview of a particular workflow for a selected option of the second set of options; and subsequent to selecting a workflow using the second interface, creating the new portal intake flow for the second web-based service, the new portal intake flow configured to generate a new issue using a particular intake interface configured in accordance with the intake request type and having the particular workflow configured in accordance with the selected workflow, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of receiving, at a first web-based service, a request to generate a new portal intake flow for a second web-based service; the first interface comprising: a first selection panel including a first set of options, each option corresponding to an intake request type for the second web-based service; a first preview panel including a dynamic preview of an intake interface for a selected option of the first set of options, the dynamic preview including a set of intake fields arranged in accordance with an intake form layout; in response to selecting an intake request type: causing generation of a prompt comprising predetermined prompt text and one or more parameters associated with the selected intake request type; in response to a prompt, obtaining a response defining one or more workflow types; the second interface comprising: a second selection panel including a second set of options, each option corresponding to a workflow type selected from the one or more workflow types and configured for processing an issue using the issue tracking system; a second preview panel including a schematic preview of a particular workflow for a selected option of the second set of options; and subsequent to selecting a workflow using the second interface, creating the new portal intake flow for the second web-based service, the new portal intake flow configured to generate a new issue using a particular intake interface configured in accordance with the intake request type and having the particular workflow configured in accordance with the selected workflow, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an issue tracking system; web-based services; subsequent to receiving the request, causing display of a first interface comprising tiles; providing the prompt to a generative output engine to obtain a generative response; and causing display of a second interface. An issue tracking system; subsequent to receiving the request, causing display of a first interface comprising tiles; providing the prompt to a generative output engine to obtain a generative response; and causing display of a second interface amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Web-based services amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, describing various additional limitations to the method of Claim 1, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claim 1 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 2 discloses in response to receiving a selection of a first tile of the first set of tiles displayed in the first interface, displaying in the first preview panel, a first preview comprising a first set of intake fields corresponding to a first request type associated with the first tile (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and in response to receiving a selection of a second tile of the first set of tiles displayed in the first interface, displaying in the first preview panel, a second preview comprising a second set of intake field corresponding to a second request type associated with the second tile (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 3 discloses the set of intake fields comprises one or more intake fields that can be configured in the first preview panel (further defining the abstract idea already present in Claim 1); and the new portal intake flow is configured to generate the new issue based on the one or more intake fields (further defining the abstract idea already present in Claim 1), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 4 discloses the set of intake fields comprises an intake field that is configured as a drop-down field comprising a list of preconfigured options that can be selected in the first preview panel (further defining the abstract idea already present in Claim 1); and the new portal intake flow is configured to generate the new issue based on a selected item from the list of preconfigured options from the intake field (further defining the abstract idea already present in Claim 1), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 5 discloses wherein the schematic preview of the particular workflow for the selected tile comprises a schematic diagram defining multiple issue states within the issue tracking system (further defining the abstract idea already present in Claim 1), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 6 discloses in response to receiving a selection of a first tile of the second set of tiles displayed in the second interface, displaying in the second preview panel, a first schematic preview comprising a first workflow corresponding to the first tile (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and in response to receiving a selection of a second tile of the second set of tiles displayed in the second interface, displaying in the second preview panel, a second schematic preview comprising a second workflow corresponding to the second tile (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 7 discloses the first workflow is a default workflow associated with a selected request type for a tile selected from the first set of tiles (further defining the abstract idea already present in Claim 6); and the second workflow is an alternative workflow associated with the selected request type for the tile selected from the first set of tiles (further defining the abstract idea already present in Claim 6), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations of the first interface comprising a first selection panel including a first set of options, each option corresponding to an intake request type for a web-based service; in response to a selection of a tile of the first set of tiles, causing display of a first preview panel including a dynamic preview of an intake interface for the selected option, the dynamic preview including a set of intake fields arranged in accordance with an intake form layout; in response to selection of an option to add an intake request type to a new portal intake flow: causing generation of a prompt comprising predetermined prompt text and content associated with the selected intake request type; in response to a prompt, obtaining a response defining one or more workflow types; causing display of a second selection panel including a second set of options, each option corresponding to a workflow type selected from the one or more workflow types and configured for processing an issue using the issue tracking system; in response to selection of an option of the second set of tiles, causing display of a second preview panel including a schematic preview of a particular workflow for a selected option of the second set of options; and subsequent to selecting a workflow using the second interface, creating the new portal intake flow for the web-based service, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of the first interface comprising a first selection panel including a first set of options, each option corresponding to an intake request type for a web-based service; in response to a selection of a tile of the first set of tiles, causing display of a first preview panel including a dynamic preview of an intake interface for the selected option, the dynamic preview including a set of intake fields arranged in accordance with an intake form layout; in response to selection of an option to add an intake request type to a new portal intake flow: causing generation of a prompt comprising predetermined prompt text and content associated with the selected intake request type; in response to a prompt, obtaining a response defining one or more workflow types; causing display of a second selection panel including a second set of options, each option corresponding to a workflow type selected from the one or more workflow types and configured for processing an issue using the issue tracking system; in response to selection of an option of the second set of tiles, causing display of a second preview panel including a schematic preview of a particular workflow for a selected option of the second set of options; and subsequent to selecting a workflow using the second interface, creating the new portal intake flow for the web-based service, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an issue tracking system, causing display of a first interface comprising tiles, a web-based service, providing the prompt to a generative output engine to obtain a generative response, and causing display of a second interface comprising tiles. An issue tracking system, causing display of a first interface comprising tiles, providing the prompt to a generative output engine to obtain a generative response, and causing display of a second interface comprising tiles amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). A web-based service amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 10-15, describing various additional limitations to the method of Claim 9, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claim 9 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 10 discloses wherein the new portal intake flow is configured to generate a new issue using a particular intake interface configured in accordance with the intake request type and having the particular workflow configured in accordance with the selected workflow (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 11 discloses the set of intake fields comprises one or more intake fields that can be configured in the first preview panel (further defining the abstract idea already present in Claim 9); and the new issue is generated based on the configuration of the one or more intake fields in the first preview panel (further defining the abstract idea already present in Claim 10), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 12 discloses in response to receiving a selection of a first tile of the first set of tiles displayed in the first interface, displaying in the first preview panel, a first preview comprising a first set of intake fields corresponding to a first request type associated with the first tile (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); receiving input to one or more fields of the first set of intake fields (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and generating a first new portal intake flow based on the received input (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 13 discloses in response to receiving a selection of a second tile of the first set of tiles displayed in the first interface, displaying in the first preview panel, a second preview comprising a second set of intake fields corresponding to a second request type associated with the second tile (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); receiving input to one or more fields of the second set of intake fields (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and generating a second new portal intake flow based on the received input to the one or more fields of the second set of fields (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 14 discloses in response to receiving a selection of a first tile of the second set of tiles displayed in the second interface, displaying in the second preview panel, a first schematic preview comprising a first workflow corresponding to the first tile (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); receiving a user selection of the first tile of the second set of tiles (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and generating a first new portal intake flow having a first particular workflow configured in accordance with the selected first tile (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 15 discloses in response to receiving a selection of a second tile of the second set of tiles displayed in the second interface, displaying in the second preview panel, a second schematic preview comprising a second workflow corresponding to the second tile (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); receiving a user selection of the second tile of the second set of tiles (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and generating a second new portal intake flow having a second particular workflow configured in accordance with the selected second tile (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations of receiving, at a first web-based service, a request to generate a project management interface for a second web-based service; subsequent to receiving the request causing generation of a prompt comprising predetermined prompt text and content associated with the project management interface; in response to a prompt, obtaining a response defining one or more workflow types; presenting a set of options, each option corresponding to a feature type of the one or more suggested feature types for the second web-based service and a selectable option for activating or deactivating the feature type in the project management interface; a preview panel including a dynamic preview of a feature interface for a selected option of the set of options, the dynamic preview including a set of fields arranged in accordance with a feature interface layout; and subsequent to receiving a first selection for activating a first feature type and a second selection for deactivating a second feature type, creating a new project management interface for the second web-based service, the new project management interface comprising a first feature interface for the first feature type, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of receiving, at a first web-based service, a request to generate a project management interface for a second web-based service; subsequent to receiving the request causing generation of a prompt comprising predetermined prompt text and content associated with the project management interface; in response to a prompt, obtaining a response defining one or more workflow types; presenting a set of options, each option corresponding to a feature type of the one or more suggested feature types for the second web-based service and a selectable option for activating or deactivating the feature type in the project management interface; a preview panel including a dynamic preview of a feature interface for a selected option of the set of options, the dynamic preview including a set of fields arranged in accordance with a feature interface layout; and subsequent to receiving a first selection for activating a first feature type and a second selection for deactivating a second feature type, creating a new project management interface for the second web-based service, the new project management interface comprising a first feature interface for the first feature type, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an issue tracking system; web-based services; providing the prompt to a generative output engine to obtain a generative response; and causing display of a first interface comprising a selection panel with tiles. An issue tracking system; providing the prompt to a generative output engine to obtain a generative response; and causing display of a first interface comprising a selection panel with tiles amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Web-based services amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 17-20, describing various additional limitations to the method of Claim 16, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claim 16 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 17 discloses in response to a selection of a first tile of the set of tiles, causing the preview panel to display the first feature interface corresponding to the first tile (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and in response to a selection of a second tile of the set of tiles, causing the preview panel to display a second feature interface corresponding to the second tile (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 18 discloses in response to a selection of a tile of the set of tiles causing the preview panel to display an overlay window (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) over the feature interface, the overlay window comprising a summary of a feature set associated with the selected feature interface (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 19 discloses wherein the dynamic preview of the feature interface for the selected tile comprises one or more options for modifying the set of fields included in the feature interface (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 20 discloses wherein the one or more options comprise an option to remove one or more fields form the set of fields, add one or more fields from the set of fields, an option to change an arrangement of the set of fields, or a combination thereof (further defining the abstract idea already present in Claim 19), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Discussion of Prior Art Cited but Not Applied
For additional information on the state of the art regarding the claims of the present application, please see the following documents not applied in this Office Action (all of which are prior art to the present application):
PGPub 20200210439 – “Autonomous Suggestion of Related Issues in an Issue Tracking System,” Bar-on et al, disclosing a system for generating and populating one or more issue request templates for the purposes of issue tracking operations
PGPub 20240296424 – “Systems and Methods for Dynamic Knowledge Driven Processes,” Bordin et al, disclosing a system which, in response to a user request to generate a mutable template, will build said template by aggregating a set of mutable form options based on user inputs and selections
PGPub 20240320922, claiming the benefit of Provisional Application 63491844 – “Real-Time Data Source and Configuration Identification for Geospatial Collaboration Environments,” Applebaum et al, disclosing a system which can generate customizable queries based on user inputs, said queries in some embodiments related to issue tracking
PGPub 20200134571 – “Express Tracking for Patient Flow Management in a Distributed Environment,” Demick et al, disclosing a system for identifying patients and tracking patient information, including the building and use of patient queries from configurable templates of predetermined questions
PGPub 20160012187 – “Systems and Methods for Determining Insufficient Medical Documentation,” Zasowski et al, disclosing a system for automatically identifying missing or insufficient information in patient documentation, and in response thereto, generating customized queries to correct these issues
US 7698162 – Customer Satisfaction System and Method,” Vaccarelli et al, disclosing a system for generating and sending queries to customers in order to detect problems regarding the purchase of goods or services
CN 114297350 – “Method For Querying City Field Knowledge Model For Natural Language, Involves Matching Query Sub-graph With Preset Template To Filter Answer Of Natural Language Problem, Where Preset Template Is Query Template Preset,” Chen et al, disclosing a system for receiving natural language input of a user defining a problem and the subsequent construction of a query using preset templates based on problem types
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARK C CLARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-2:30pm 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/MARK C CLARE/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628