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 .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The following is a Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 18/452,436, filed on August 18, 2023. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection dated March 19, 2026, Applicant on June 19, 2026, amended claims 21, 26, 27, 33, 38, 39 and 45. Claims 21-45 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are acknowledged.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to claims 21, 33 and 45.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed June 19, 2026 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicants’ Remarks regarding the pending rejections will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed June 19, 2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states to the extent the claims recite any abstract idea, it is integrated into a practical application.' The claims as amended herein recite, inter alia, "rendering the potential value indicator with a strikethrough responsive to determining that the first condition was not met." These are specific functions of a user interface, not an abstract idea.
The Office characterizes the act of adjusting the user interface as "insignificant extra- solution activity of collecting and delivering data." Office Action at p. 4; see MPEP 2106.05(g). The recited limitations, however, do not collect or deliver data. They specify a particular manner of presenting information within the user interface itself - conditionally striking through a displayed potential value to convey, at a glance, the forfeited potential value. See, e.g., Specification [0061], [oo64]-[oo65]. The MPEP recognizes that a claim reflecting an improvement to other technology (including the manner in which a user interface functions) integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
The recited limitations are directed to such a user-interface-specific improvement, not a generic instruction to apply an abstract idea, and thus impose a meaningful limitation on any asserted exception. Accordingly, the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under Step 2A, Prong Two, and Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the § 101 rejection.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner find the amended user interface limitations does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Examiner finds the abovementioned limitation is not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims; see MPEP 2106.05(h) and is solely used as a tool to perform the instructions of the abstract idea. Examiner notes DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) presents an invention that is rooted in computer technology. Specifically, the court found when a third party's advertisement hyperlink was selected by a user on a host's web page, the system would automatically identify the host web page, retrieve corresponding "look and feel" information from storage for the host page and generate a hybrid web page including the merchant information from the third-party web page with the "look and feel" elements of the host's website. This is different from conventional Internet hyperlink operations which would redirect a user to the third-party page away from the host's web page when the hyperlink is activated and therefore added a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. Advancements in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) were found eligible because the claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices, as well as, the improvements to the user interface for electronic devices. Example 37 integrated the mental process into a practical application because the additional elements automatically move the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use, which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. Examiner finds no similar improvements to the user interface recited in the present invention. Examiner finds the abovementioned limitation in combination with the remaining claim limitations as a whole, improve an existing business process (e.g. work management) and not a technology, technological field or computer related technology (i.e., user interface). Applicant has not identified any disclosure in the claimed invention showing and/or submitting that the technology used is being improved, there was a technical problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves, or the ordered combinations of the known elements is significantly more than instructions used to generate reports based on work performed at a worksite. For at least these reasons, the pending claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 21-32 are directed towards a method, claims 33-44 are directed towards a system and claim 45 are directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 21-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite generating reports based on work performed at a worksite.
Claim 21 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Specifically, performing work at a worksite; extracting work information from a work message to adjust a work record, wherein the work information is about the work performed at the worksite; manipulating an activity record responsive to the work record and a rule comprising a plurality of rule attributes to set an activity value of the activity record, wherein a first one of the rule attributes comprises a first condition for increasing the activity value of the activity record responsive to determining that the work was performed on time; and processing the activity record to generate an activity report comprising the activity value constitutes methods based on managing personal behavior, as well as, methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of a user interface does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 33 recite certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes for similar reasons as claim 21.
Claim 45 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Specifically, extracting work information from a work message to adjust a work record, wherein the work information is about work that was performed at a worksite; manipulating an activity record responsive to the work record and a rule comprising a plurality of rule attributes to set an activity value of the activity record, wherein a first one of the rule attributes comprises a first condition for increasing the activity value of the activity record responsive to determining that the work was performed on time, and wherein a second one of the rule attributes comprises a second condition for increasing the activity value of the activity record responsive to determining that the work was performed with no punch list items; processing the activity record to generate an activity report comprising the activity value constitutes methods based on managing personal behavior, as well as, methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of a user interface does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 21 recites adjusting a user interface responsive to the activity report, which is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claim 21 recites wherein adjusting the user interface comprises: rendering a list item in a list view of the user interface, the list item corresponding to the activity record, the list item comprising an activity value indicator displaying the activity value, the list item further comprising a potential value indicator displaying a potential value associated with the first condition: setting a color of the activity value indicator to a first color responsive to the activity value being a negative number and to a second color different from the first color responsive to the activity value being a non-negative number; and rendering the potential value indicator with a strikethrough responsive to determining that the first condition was not met, which are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims; see MPEP 2106.05(h) and is solely used as a tool to perform the instructions of the abstract idea. Thus, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 21 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and therefore is directed to an abstract idea. The system comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising an application executable by at least one processor recited in claim 33 and non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer readable program code executed by a processor in claim 45 also is not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims; see MPEP 2106.05(h) and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements recited in claims 33 and 45 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 21.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including user interface, system comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising an application executable by at least on processor and non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer readable program code executed by a processor amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 27 and 39 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 27 and 39 recites wherein adjusting the user interface responsive to the activity report comprises: modifying a list view displaying a plurality of activity records which is considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 28-30 and 40-42 recites setting attributes with an administrator device, which amounts to no more than a generic computer component used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 22-32 and 34-44 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. Therefore claims 22-32 and 34-44 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Distinguishable over the Prior Art
The prior art rejections of the amended claims are removed. Examiner analyzed amended claim 21 in view of the prior art on record and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine references with a reasonable expectation of success.
Ellis (US 20140297348 A1) teaches electronic time management (see par. 0003). Specifically, Ellis discloses receiving from the assigning user a list of one or more tasks, associating the tasks with a given task list or to-do list, managing tracking of completion of the task list by the performing user, and managing an incentive reward system for driving completion of the assigned tasks (see par. 0074) and an exemplary user interface (UI) displaying an exemplary current balance of points for an exemplary points value system; an exemplary interface for adding exemplary negative point value and/or exemplary positive point value to an exemplary base value, to obtain an exemplary final point value; and exemplary functionality to convert points system value into, e.g., exemplary monetary value, etc. (see par. 0068).
Hildrum et al. (US 20120042319 A1) teaches a flexible allocation scheme for data parallel tasks (see par. 0003). Specifically, Hildrum discloses a flexible scheduling allocation scheme referred to as FLEX. The metrics of the FLEX allocation scheduler can be chosen by a system administrator on a cluster-wide basis, or by individual users on a job-by-job basis. These metrics can be chosen from a menu that includes response time, makespan (e.g., dual to throughput), stretch, and any of several metrics which reward or penalize job completion times compared to possible deadlines. More generally, consider the example of negotiating Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with MapReduce users for which a penalty depends on the level of service achieved. Formally, this can be described by a step function penalty function, each step corresponding to the penalty that would be incurred by missing the previous pseudo-deadline but making the next one (see par. 0025).
However, Ellis and Hildrum, individually or in combination with the prior art of record, does not explicitly teach the combination of claim limitations as recited in claim 21. Thus, claim 21 is found to be distinguishable over the prior art. Claim 33 and 45 are distinguishable for similar reasons as claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smith et al. (US 20150006226 A1) – An approach is provided for scheduling work order tasks based on an optimization of available resources and an assessment of cost penalty functions for missing work order deadlines, including determining an estimated work order completion time for processing a plurality of tasks associated with a work order on one or more resources, scheduling the plurality of tasks in a processing queue based on the estimated work order completion time, and determining a value of a penalty function for violating a work order deadline.
Guo et al. (Task Allocation in Spatial Crowdsourcing: Current State and Future Directions) – This paper first gives a review of the current state of research in this field, including single task allocation, multiple task allocation, low-cost task allocation, and quality-enhanced task allocation. We further investigate the future trends and open issues of SC task allocation, including skill-based task allocation, group recommendation and collaboration, task composition and decomposition, and privacypreserving task allocation. Finally, we discuss the practical issues on real-world deployment as well as the challenges for large-scale user study in SC task allocation.
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 Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Patty Munson can be reached at (571)270-5396. 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.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights