DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the amendment and response filed on 02/25/2026.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-10 have been amended.
Claim 11 has been added.
Claims 2 and 4 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation
After careful review of the original specification, the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See MPEP §2111.01 IV.
Terms such as “when”, “if”, “only if”, “on the condition”, “in the event” and “in a case where” are representative of optional limitations; therefore, optional or conditional language do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted.
Arguments and Assertions by the Applicant
Applicant’s arguments received 02/25/2026 with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant’s amendments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5-11 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1, 3, and 5-11 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been updated to conform to current guidelines and maintained accordingly.
The relevant question is whether the claims do more than collect, store, display, and compare data to optimize a social messaging objective on a generic computer. This does not appear to be the case.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer to obtain data, use data to identify other data, and filtering data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. Moreover, the technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. Therefore the claims are not significantly more than recitations of a judicial exception. In summary, each step does no more than require a common computer to perform universal computer functions. Therefore, the claims are directed to using a computer as a tool to follow instructions.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of petitioner's method, system, and/or computer readable medium add nothing that is not already present when the steps reconsidered separately. Viewed as a whole, the method, system, and/or computer readable medium claims simply recite the concept of analyzing storing data in the form of digital data, comparing/categorizing data, and displaying the data.
The method, system, and/or computer readable medium claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of organizing and analyzing data using some unspecified, generic computer. Consequently, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
As in TLI, Applicant’s claims are “not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combing the two.” See TLI Communications LLC v. A.V. Automotive, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2016). “The specification does not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two. The specification fails to provide any technical details for the tangible components, but instead predominantly describes the system and methods in purely functional terms.” Id. "Instead, the claims, as noted, are simply directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner." Id.
The claims in this case fall into a familiar class of claims “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept. The focus of the asserted claims, as illustrated by the claims, is on collecting information, analyzing it, displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and sending instruction to implement result. The outer limits of “abstract idea” need not be defined, nor at this stage exclude the possibility that any particular inventive means are to be found somewhere in the claims, to conclude that these claims focus on an abstract idea - and hence require stage-two analysis under §101. Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the courts have treated, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
In a similar vein, the courts have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589–90 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). In addition, merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
In this case, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. This invention claims a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, processing that data, then displaying the results, without any particular or asserted inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
For stage 2 of the analysis, merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.
Referring to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A., the claims in this case do not even require a new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it. See, e.g., US Patent 8,401,710 B2 (Budhraja et. al.), col. 8, lines 51–62 (referring to existing phasor data sources); J.A. 6969–71 (describing workings and history of phasor data use); Electric Power Group Br. at 21–22; Reply Br. at 5 (new algorithms not claimed). As a result, the claims do not require an inventive set of components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques that would generate new data. They do not invoke any novel inventive programming. Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information—to provide a “humanly comprehensible” amount of information useful for users, Reply Br. at 6; Electric Power Group Br. at 14–15—by itself does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and analysis.
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, 3, and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step 1:
The claims recite a process, system, apparatus, article of manufacture, and/or a nontransitory storage medium with instructions, each of which are proper statutory categories.
Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 1 (representative of claims 9 and 10):
The claim limitations are grouped as shown immediately following:
A task support system for supporting a user in tasks, the task support system comprising at least one processor configured to: (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
display a notification screen including plurality of notifications received by the user when a message from another user is registered in the task support system; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
receive, on the notification screen, a reaction operation for making a reaction relating to a notification-related task associated with each of the plurality of the notifications; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
execute reaction processing relating to the reaction based on the reaction operation; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
transition the notification screen to a transition destination screen associated with the notification when the notification is selected on the notification screen, the transition destination screen including the message indicated in the selected notification; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
receive a second operation relating to the notification-related task on the transition destination screen: (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
execute second task processing relating to the notification-related task based on the second operation; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
wherein the reaction operation which is receivable on the notification screen is the same as or simpler than the second operation which is receivable on the transition destination screen. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Additional dependent claims 3, 5-8, and 11 do not appear remedy the deficiency.
Step 2A (prong 2):
Claim 1 (representative of claims 9 and 10):
… at least one processor
… a notification screen
These remaining claim limitations are delineated as shown immediately preceding. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field, a particular machine is not cited, nothing is transformed to a different state or thing, the abstract idea is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is generally linked to a particular field of use, in this case, marketing and advertising. Thus, these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function of processing and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component – MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, receiving data, evaluating data and distributing data are data gathering and data outputting, which has no effect on technology and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
The claim limitations do not provide an Inventive Concept. The claim limitations do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the additional elements of the system comprising a computer processor, computer readable storage medium with instructions, and a memory configured to store information, each recited at a high level of generality in a computer network which only perform the universal computer functions of accessing, receiving, storing, and processing data, transmitting and presenting information. Taking the elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely orthodox. Using a computer to obtain and display data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. As shown, the individual limitations claimed are some of the most rudimentary functions of a computer. The technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. In summary, the individual step and/or component does no more than require a general computer to perform standard computer functions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 10:
Claim 10, as recited, are directed toward logic. Such logic can be interpreted as computer code, per se, which is not a statutory category and is therefore unpatentable. However, a computer program can be eligible for patent protection if it is tangibly embodied on a computer readable medium and, when executed by a computer, performs the steps of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-11 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asenjo et al. (USPGP 2014/0336786 A1), hereinafter ASENJO, in view of Gruber et al. (US 10,795,541 B2), hereinafter GRUBER.
Claims 1, 9, 10:
ASENJO as shown below discloses the following limitations:
A task support system for supporting a user in tasks, the task support system comprising at least one processor configured to: (see at least paragraphs 0003-0005)
receive, on the notification screen, a reaction operation for making a reaction relating to a notification-related task associated with each of the plurality of the notifications; (see at least paragraphs 0003-005, 0095, 0107, 0129; claim 39, paragraphs 0091, 0126)
execute reaction processing relating to the reaction based on the reaction operation; (see at least paragraphs 0003-005, 0095, 0107)
transition the notification screen to a transition destination screen associated with the notification when the notification is selected on the notification screen; (see at least paragraphs 0129, 0143, 0168; Figure 24 as well as associated and related text)
receive a second operation relating to the notification-related task on the transition destination screen; (see at least paragraphs 0047, 0107, 0116, 0129)
execute second task processing relating to the notification-related task based on the second operation, (see at least paragraphs 0047, 0107, 0116, 0129)
wherein the first operation which is receivable on the notification screen is the same as or simpler than the second operation which is receivable on the transition destination screen. (see at least paragraphs 0047, 0107, 0116, 0129)
ASENJO does not specifically disclose:
display a notification screen including plurality of notifications received by the user when a message from another user is registered in the task support system;
However, GRUBER in at least column 15, lines 40-47 does. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not necessarily combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the task execution system and method of ASENJO with the screen notification element of GRUBER because, “Industrial controllers and their associated input/output (I/O) devices can be useful to the operation of modern industrial automation systems. These industrial controllers can interact with field devices on the plant floor to control automated processes relating to such objectives as product manufacture, material handling, batch processing, supervisory control, and other such applications. Industrial controllers can store and execute user-defined control programs to effect decision-making in connection with the controlled process. Such programs can include, but are not limited to, ladder logic, sequential function charts, function block diagrams, structured text, or other such programming structures. In general, industrial controllers can read input data from sensors and metering devices that can provide discreet and telemetric data regarding one or more states of the controlled system, and can generate control outputs based on these inputs in accordance with the user-defined program.” (ASENJO: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claim 3:
The combination of ASENJO/GRUBER discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ASENJO further discloses the following limitations:
the transition destination screen as one of a pop-up of the notification screen or as a tab separate from the notification screen,
See at least paragraph 0130; Figures 4 and 5 as well as associated and related text.
Claim 4:
The combination of ASENJO/BARROS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ASENJO further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
receive, as the first operation, a reaction operation for making a reaction relating to the notification-related task;
execute, based on the reaction operation, reaction processing relating to the reaction as the first task processing.
See at least claim 39, paragraphs 0091, 0126, and 0129.
Claim 5:
The combination of ASENJO/GRUBER discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ASENJO further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
receive, as the first operation, a status change operation for changing a status relating to the notification-related task;
execute, based on the status change operation, status change processing relating to the change of the status as the first task processing.
See at least paragraphs 0034-0036.
Claim 6:
The combination of ASENJO/GRUBER discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ASENJO further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
receive, on the notification screen, a drag-and-drop of the notification as the first operation;
execute the first task processing based on a drop position in the drag and drop.
See at least claim 39, paragraphs 0091, 0126, and 0129.
Claim 7:
The combination of ASENJO/GRUBER discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ASENJO further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
determine whether the notification satisfies a display condition associated with each of a plurality of display areas on the notification screen;
display the notification screen such that, in each of the plurality of display areas, the notification determined to satisfy the display condition associated with the each of the plurality of display areas is arranged;
execute the first task processing based on, of the plurality of display areas, a display area at the drop position.
See at least claim 39, paragraphs 0091, 0126, and 0129.
Claim 8:
The combination of ASENJO/GRUBER discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. ASENJO further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute, as the first task processing, display condition setting processing for setting a display condition on the notification screen based on the notification received in the first operation.
See at least claim 39, paragraphs 0091, 0126, and 0129.
Claim 11:
The combination of ASENJO/GRUBER discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. GRUBER further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to display a notification screen including a summary of the message of each of the plurality of the notifications and a number of reactions to the message of each of the plurality of the notifications.
However, GRUBER in at least column 15, lines 40-47 does. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not necessarily combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the task execution system and method of ASENJO with the screen notification element of GRUBER because, “Industrial controllers and their associated input/output (I/O) devices can be useful to the operation of modern industrial automation systems. These industrial controllers can interact with field devices on the plant floor to control automated processes relating to such objectives as product manufacture, material handling, batch processing, supervisory control, and other such applications. Industrial controllers can store and execute user-defined control programs to effect decision-making in connection with the controlled process. Such programs can include, but are not limited to, ladder logic, sequential function charts, function block diagrams, structured text, or other such programming structures. In general, industrial controllers can read input data from sensors and metering devices that can provide discreet and telemetric data regarding one or more states of the controlled system, and can generate control outputs based on these inputs in accordance with the user-defined program.” (ASENJO: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
ProjectManager. “The Ultimate Guide to…Task Management.” (March 4, 2016). Retrieved online 11/23/2025. https://www.projectmanager.com/guides/task-management
CSC Government Solutions LLC. “Flight Schedule Monitor User’s Guide Version.” (February 26, 2016). Retrieved online 11/23/2025. https://tfmlearning.faa.gov/tfm-training/final_rel_13_tfms_fsm_users_guide_12686.pdf
Foreign Art:
PEZARIS. “Method For Augmenting Integrated Software Development Environment By Communication System, Involves Receiving Data To Be Included In Message In Predefined Form, Generating Message Based On Data, And Providing Message To Communication System.” (WO 2019/153013 A1)
AUERBACH et al. “Computer-based Knowledge Base Contents Providing Method For Assisting Users In Oil And Gas Industries, Involves Displaying Main Task Item And User Selectable Sub Task Items Specifying Subtask Of Associated Main Task.” (WO 0191032 A2)
AOYAMA et al. “Information-sharing System E.g. Computer Has Display Information Generation Unit To Generate Display Information To Display Screen That Distinguishes Notifications Of Input Of Comment Of Other-party And Non-other-party.” (JP 2014/174773 A)
Applicant’s amendment filed on 02/25/2026 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)
Prosecution Insights