DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a NON-FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/476,156 filed on 09/27/2023. In response to the Election/Restriction requirement of 11/19/2025, Applicant, on 01/16/2026, elected Group I, claims 1-11, for examination. Claims 1-19 are pending in this application, of which claims 1-11 have been examined on the merits discussed below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Application 18/476,156 filed 09/27/2023 claims Priority from Provisional Application 63/410,365, filed 09/27/2022.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction dated 11/19/2025 in the reply filed on 01/16/2026 is acknowledged.
In response to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected Group I, claims 1-11. Claims 12-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on 01/16/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 01/16/2026 is acknowledged. As described in the Election/Restriction Requirement dated 11/19/2025, restriction to one of the following inventions was required under 35 U.S.C. 121: Group I: claims 1-11 drawn to a system configured to automatically manage prioritization and completion of chores within a contribution management environment, classified in CPC class, G06Q, subclass 10/06316, and Group II: claims 12-19 are drawn to a system configured to automatically manage values associated with user activity within a compliance environment, classified in CPC class G06Q, subclass 10/0639.
The traversal is on the ground(s) “that searching for all of the alleged inventions simultaneously would not place undue burden on the Examiner. For example, the allegedly distinct inventions recite related features and functionalities such that searching for all of the alleged inventions simultaneously would not place undue burden on the Examiner.”
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive because the Restriction Requirement clearly indicated that restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given in the Restriction requirement and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reason(s) apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; and the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
As set forth in the Election/Restriction Requirement, Invention I and II are independent and distinct under 35 U.S.C. 121 for several reasons, including differences in subject matter, classification, and required fields of search. Specifically, Invention I relates to a contribution management environment that tracks chores, chore values, and contribution balances, while Invention II related to a compliance environment that tracks compliance, levels, challenges, and approval thresholds. Although both inventions involve user interactions, the fundamental problems solved and operational environments are different. Searching these inventions would require accessing different patent classes and subclasses, developing distinct search queries tailored to the specific technical features of each invention, and consulting different sets of non-patent literature relevant to contribution management systems versus compliance based user management systems. The differences demonstrate that examining the inventions together would impose a serious search and examination burden, consistent with MPEP 806.05(d).
As evidenced by the Restriction Requirement, there are provided different systems. The claim groups recite various embodiments of different systems. It is noted that the separate utilities present distinctive subject matter that would have to be individually searched and would not necessarily present itself via a single generic search of a particular class/subclass. Applicant's divergent claiming places a significant burden on the Examiner’s search in that each feature will singularly require significant time to search. Additional search time via the employment of expanded and different search queries would be necessary to account for each of these features which would not exist if just one were claimed. Moreover, not only does the Examiner have to search class and subclass in the patent databases, there are numerous non patent literature electronic resource databases, accessible using tools such as DIALOG, Proquest, NEXIS, Google, etc., which are also searched prior to any patentability determination, further adding to the Examiner’s overall search duration. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reason(s) apply: a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; (b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; (c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); (d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; (e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Although the subcombinations could be used together, they also possess separate and distinct utility. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the chore information for individual ones of the chores includes a chore identifier, a baseline chore value, a last performance timing, and a chore valuing function, wherein the baseline chore value characterizes an initial chore value of an individual chore within the contribution management environment wherein the chores include a first chore, wherein the environment information includes first chore information for a first chore, wherein…” Claim 1 should recite “wherein the chore information for individual ones of the chores includes a chore identifier, a baseline chore value, a last performance timing, and a chore valuing function, wherein the baseline chore value characterizes an initial chore value of an individual chore within the contribution management environment, wherein the chores include a first chore, wherein the environment information includes first chore information for a first chore, wherein…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “wherein a second chore is managed by the contribution management environment, wherein the environment information includes second chore information for the second chore, wherein the second chore information includes a second chore identifier of the second chore, a baseline second chore value of the second chore, last performance timing of the second chore, and a second chore valuing function wherein the one or more hardware…” Claim 2 should recite “wherein a second chore is managed by the contribution management environment, wherein the environment information includes second chore information for the second chore, wherein the second chore information includes a second chore identifier of the second chore, a baseline second chore value of the second chore, last performance timing of the second chore, and a second chore valuing function, wherein the one or more hardware…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the second chore information includes a second chore identifier of the second chore, a current second chore value of the second chore, last performance timing of the second chore, and a second chore valuing function wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to: receive a priority decrease request indicating a request to decrease priority of the first chore from one or more client computing platforms, wherein the priority…” Claim 3 should recite “wherein the second chore information includes a second chore identifier of the second chore, a current second chore value of the second chore, last performance timing of the second chore, and a second chore valuing function, wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to: receive a priority decrease request indicating a request to decrease priority of the first chore from one or more client computing platforms, wherein the priority……” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
9. Claim 1 recites “determine the approval received is sufficient to update the contribution management environment.” The term sufficient” is a relative term that renders the scope of the claim unclear because the claim fails to provide an objective standard for determining what constitutes “sufficient” approval. The claim does not specify whether sufficiency is based on a majority, unanimity, a threshold, or another defined criterion. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
10. Claim 1 recites “wherein the contribution management environment is updated responsive to receiving sufficient approval of the completion request, wherein updating the contribution management environment includes (i) updating the first contribution balance associated with the first user such that the first contribution balance reflects the first current chore value responsive to being updated, and(ii) updating the first current chore value of the first chore such that the first current chore value is lowered responsive to being updated.” The claim recites that the first contribution balance “reflects the first current chore value responsive to being updated” and that the fist current chore value “is lowered responsive to being updated.” The phrase “responsive to being updated” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is being updated ad what event triggers the recited responsiveness. It is ambiguous whether the phrase refers to updating of the contribution management environment, updating of the first contribution balance, updating of the first current chore values, or another action. Therefore, rendering the claim scope unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
11. Claims 2 and 3 recite the phrase “the growth over time,” which lacks antecedent basis, and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
12. Claim 11 recites “receive approval of the chore modification request from one or more via the one or more client computing platforms.” It is unclear as to what “one or more” refers to. The limitation is missing a noun. The phrase fails to specify from whom or for what the approval is received (i.e., one or more users), therefore rendering the claim scope indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
13. All claims dependent from above rejected claims are also rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
14. 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.
15. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the system (claims 1-11) is directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-11 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea set forth in MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., social activities, following rules or instructions) within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping, and steps that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and therefore fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping. With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: a system configured to automatically manage prioritization and completion of chores within a contribution management environment, the system comprising: non-transitory electronic storage configured to store environment information defining a contribution management environment, wherein the contribution management environment manages chores to be completed by users of the contribution management environment, wherein the environment information includes chore information for the chores managed by the contribution management environment and user information for the users of the contribution management environment, wherein the chore information for individual ones of the chores includes a chore identifier, a baseline chore value, a last performance timing, and a chore valuing function, wherein the baseline chore value characterizes an initial chore value of an individual chore within the contribution management environment wherein the chores include a first chore, wherein the environment information includes first chore information for a first chore, wherein the first chore information includes a first chore identifier of the first chore, a first baseline chore value of the first chore, a last performance timing of the first chore, and a first chore valuing function of the first chore, wherein the user information for individual ones of the users includes a user identifier and a contribution balance, wherein the individual contribution balances associated with the individual ones of the users characterize a current chore value of chores completed by the individual ones of the users, wherein the users include a first user, and wherein the user information includes first user information for the first user, wherein the first user information includes a first user identifier of the first user and a first contribution balance associated with the first user; and one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: determine current chore values of the chores based on the chore valuing functions and the last performance timings of the chores, wherein a first current chore value for the first chore is determined based on the first chore valuing function and the last performance timing of the first chore; effectuate presentation of the current chore values to the users via individual client computing platforms associated with individual ones of the users, wherein presentation of the current chore values including the first current chore value to the first user via a first client computing platform associated with the first user is effectuated; receive a completion request from the first client computing platform, wherein the completion request indicates a request to update the contribution management environment such that completion of the first chore by the first user is reflected, wherein the completion request includes information identifying the first user and information identifying the first chore; transmit, to the individual client computing platforms, an indication of the completion request responsive to receipt of the completion request, wherein the indication identifies the first user, the first chore, and the first current chore value, wherein the indication enables one or more other users to approve the completion request via one or more client computing platforms associated with the one or more other users; receive approval of the completion request from one or more other users via the one or more client computing platforms; determine the approval received is sufficient to update the contribution management environment; and update the contribution management environment such that completion of the first chore by the first user is reflected, wherein the contribution management environment is updated responsive to receiving sufficient approval of the completion request, wherein updating the contribution management environment includes (i) updating the first contribution balance associated with the first user such that the first contribution balance reflects the first current chore value responsive to being updated, and (ii) updating the first current chore value of the first chore such that the first current chore value is lowered responsive to being updated. Considered together, these steps set forth an abstract idea of that falls under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings set forth in MPEP 2106. The limitations fall under the certain methods of organizing human activity because they are directed to managing interpersonal obligations and behavior, specifically assigning, valuing, and approving and tracking chore completion among users. The claims also recite mental processes because the steps of evaluating chore vales, determining approval, and updating contribution balances can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings described in MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. With respect to the independent claims, the additional elements are: a system configured to, non-transitory electronic storage configured to, one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions to, individual client computing platforms associated with individual ones of the users, a first client computing platform associated with the first user, and one or more client computing platforms associated with the one or more other users (claim 1). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the receiving and transmitting steps are not deemed part of the abstract idea, these steps are at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to the independent claims, the additional elements are: a system configured to, non-transitory electronic storage configured to, one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions to, individual client computing platforms associated with individual ones of the users, a first client computing platform associated with the first user, and one or more client computing platforms associated with the one or more other users (claim 1). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification acknowledges that the claimed invention relies on nothing more than a general purpose computer executing instructions to implement the invention (Specification at paragraph [0080]). Therefore, the additional elements merely describe generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Even if the receiving and transmitting steps are not deemed part of the abstract idea, these steps are at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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).
Similarly, with respect to the “storing” step, even if considered as an additional element, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), nor add significantly more because such activity has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d). “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: iv. 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; v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).” See MPEP 2106.05(d).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-11 recite the same abstract ideas as recited in the independent claims by reciting steps/details for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., social activities, following rules or instructions) and steps that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). For example, dependent claims 2-11 recite the limitations “wherein a second chore is managed by the contribution management environment, wherein the environment information includes second chore information for the second chore, wherein the second chore information includes a second chore identifier of the second chore, a baseline second chore value of the second chore, last performance timing of the second chore, and a second chore valuing function; receive a priority increase request indicating a request to prioritize the first chore from one or more client computing platforms responsive to receipt of the priority increase request, wherein the priority increase request includes the first chore identifier and one or more chore identifiers of one or more other chores, wherein the one or more chore identifiers includes the second chore identifier; update a subset of chore information for the one or more other chores, wherein updating the subset of the chore information for the one or more other chores includes lowering one or more baseline chore values of the one or more other chores and/or the growth over time of the chore values of the one or more other chores, wherein the baseline second chore value and/or the second chore valuing function is lowered; and update a subset of the first chore information, wherein updating the subset of the first chore information includes increasing the first baseline chore value and/or the first chore valuing function, wherein such increase is reflective of the lowering of the baseline chore values and/or the lowering of the growth over time of the chore values of the one or more other chores,” “wherein a second chore is managed by the contribution management environment, wherein the environment information includes second chore information for the second chore, wherein the second chore information includes a second chore identifier of the second chore, a current second chore value of the second chore, last performance timing of the second chore, and a second chore valuing function; receive a priority decrease request indicating a request to decrease priority of the first chore, wherein the priority decrease request includes the first chore identifier and one or more chore identifiers of one or more other chores, wherein the one or more chore identifiers includes the second chore identifier; update a subset of chore information for the one or more other chores, wherein updating the subset of the chore information for the one or more other chores includes increasing one or more baseline chore values of the one or more other chores and/or the growth over time of the chore values of the one or more other chores, wherein the baseline second chore value and/or the second chore valuing function is increased; and update a subset of the first chore information, wherein updating the subset of the first chore information includes decreasing the first baseline chore value and/or the first chore valuing function, wherein such decrease is reflective of the increase of the baseline chore values and/or the increase of the growth over time of the chore values of the one or more other chores,” “effectuate presentation of the current chore values of the chores responsive to the contribution management environment being updated,” “wherein an individual contribution balance reflects current chore value of chores completed by the individual ones of the users during a sliding window of time or during a current window of time, effectuate presentation of the contribution balances,” “wherein an individual contribution balance reflects current chore value of chores completed by an individual user during a sliding window of time or during a current window of time, wherein the environment information includes an indication of a window duration, wherein the window duration denotes a length of time of windows for tracking contribution balances of the users, wherein the user information includes individual contribution balance requirements, wherein the individual contribution balance requirements denote minimum contribution balances to be associated with individual ones of the users during individual windows of time, wherein the first user information includes a first contribution balance requirement denoting a minimum contribution balance to be associated with the first user at the conclusion of a particular window of time,” “determine a first window has concluded, wherein determining the first window has concluded includes identifying an amount of time since the individual contribution balances associated with individual ones of the users have been reset and determining the amount of time is greater than or equal to the window duration; determine the first contribution balance is less than the first contribution balance requirement responsive to determining the first window has concluded; transmit an indication that the first contribution balance is less than the first contribution balance requirement; reset the contribution balances of the users of the contribution management environment such that the contribution balances reflect the users have not completed any chores during a second window,” “receive a break request, wherein the break request indicates a duration of absence of the first user from the contribution management environment during an individual window; determine the break request is a valid break request, wherein determining validity of the break request includes determining whether the duration of absence is greater than or equal to a minimum break duration and/or less than or equal to a maximum break duration; update the first chore valuing function such that growth over time of a first chore value of the first chore is decreased during the individual window; and update the first contribution balance requirement such that the first contribution balance requirement is lowered to reflect the duration of absence of the first user,” “wherein the chore information for the individual ones of the chores includes a priority value such that the first chore information includes a first priority value, wherein a priority value characterizes priority of an individual chore within the contribution management environment, wherein priority values of the chores managed by the contribution management environment sum to a constant value at a given time,” “wherein determining the approval received is sufficient to update the contribution management environment includes determining approval has been received from a number of users greater than or equal to a minimum number of users required for approval of the completion request,” “receive a chore modification request, wherein the chore modification request indicates a request to update the contribution management environment such that one or more of addition, removal, and/or change of one or more chores is reflected, wherein the chore modification request includes a subset of chore information for the one or more chores; receive approval of the chore modification request; determine the approval received is sufficient to update the contribution management environment; and update the contribution management environment such that the one or more of addition, removal, and/or change of the one or more chores is reflected, wherein updating the contribution management environment such that (i) addition of the one or more chores is reflected includes updating the contribution management environment such that the one or more chores are managed by the contribution management environment, (ii) removal of the one or more chores is reflected includes updating the contribution management environment such that the one or more chores are no longer managed by the contribution management environment, and/or (iii) change of the one or more chores is reflected includes updating the contribution management environment such that chore information for the one or more chores is changed,” however, these limitations fall under the same “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea groupings by describing additional details for organizing human activity and mental activity that can be accomplished via human observation, judgment, or evaluation. The one or more hardware processors (claim 2), the one or more hardware processors and one or more client computing platforms (claim 3), the one or more hardware processors and one or more client computing platforms (claim 4), the one or more hardware processors and one or more client computing platforms (claim 5), the one or more hardware processors and one or more client computing platforms (claim 7), the one or more hardware processors and a client computing platform associated with the first user (claim 8), the one or more hardware processors, one or more client computing platforms associated with a user, and one or more via the one or more client computing platforms (claim 11) have been evaluated as an additional element as well. However, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and fail to yield any discernible improvement to the computer or to any technology, nor set forth any additional function or result that provided meaningful limitation beyond linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., automated/computing environment), and thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
17. 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.
18. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
19. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
20. Claims 1, 4-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu, Pub. No.: US 2012/0123835 A1, [hereinafter Chu], in view of McCormack, Pub. No.: US 2017/0124531 A1, [hereinafter McCormack].
As per claim 1, Chu teaches a system configured to automatically manage prioritization and completion of chores within a contribution management environment, the system (paragraph 0003: “systems and methods of managing tasks assigned by a manager to an individual comprising an online task management system”) comprising:
non-transitory electronic storage configured to store environment information defining a contribution management environment, wherein the contribution management environment manages chores to be completed by users of the contribution management environment, wherein the environment information includes chore information for the chores managed by the contribution management environment and user information for the users of the contribution management environment (paragraph 0017, discussing a system for task management may comprise an individual user interface, comprising a scoreboard, a to do management facility, a rewards choice facility…; paragraph 0020, discussing a method for creating balance sheets may comprise a way to select the balance sheet for specific users, for specific dates, and the like. Each individual balance sheet may include individual entries for tasks and bonuses, points assigned, points earned, grades given for each entry, the date that tasks where completed, a checklist of tasks completed, and the like; paragraph 0149, discussing an exemplary task management system...The Task Management Server may host ‘To Do wizards,’ ‘Rewards wizards,’ ‘Internet Management facilities,’ ‘Task Grading Facilities,’ ‘Task History Facilities,’ and the like. The Task Management Server may be operably linked to a Database. The Database may store assigned tasks, progress on completion of tasks, points and game tokens balances, points deducted from a points balance, a goals list, and the like; paragraph 0152, discussing that one or more of the processes may be realized as computer executable code created using a structured programming language or any other high-level or low-level programming language that may be stored, compiled or interpreted to run on one of the above devices, as well as heterogeneous combinations of processors, processor architectures, or combinations of different hardware and software; claim 154: “a non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with a computer program, the program comprising instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: associating a plurality of real-world tasks with an individual”; paragraphs 0051, 0053),
wherein the chore information for individual ones of the chores includes a chore identifier, a baseline chore value, a last performance timing, and a chore valuing function, wherein the baseline chore value characterizes an initial chore value of an individual chore within the contribution management environment wherein the chores include a first chore, wherein the environment information includes first chore information for a first chore, wherein the first chore information includes a first chore identifier of the first chore, a first baseline chore value of the first chore, a last performance timing of the first chore, and a first chore valuing function of the first chore (paragraph 0018, discussing a method for task management comprising creating or editing a task chart for an individual, selecting a task to place in the task chart, providing a timeline for completion of the selected task, selecting a points amounts for each task, and naming the chart and/or selecting an icon to associate with the task chart; paragraph 0020, discussing that each individual balance sheet may include individual entries for tasks and bonuses, points assigned, points earned, grades given for each entry, the date that tasks where completed, a checklist of tasks completed, and the like…; paragraph 0051, discussing that the systems described may facilitate a manager setting up an allowance program for individuals and to motivate them to achieve manageable goals...The systems described may facilitate an individual earning points for doing chores...Individuals may earn points associated with successful completion of an assigned task. Individuals may have points deducted from a points balance for not completing tasks on time, to a manager's satisfaction, and the like; paragraph 0068, discussing that a user interface for managers may comprise a Grade Tasks facility for grading tasks that individuals may have completed. Points may be awarded once a task may be graded. Points may be deducted for not completing tasks in a timely fashion, satisfactory fashion, or at all…The Grade Tasks facility may comprise a list of task names, the date the task was completed, the number of points awarded for completion of the task…, and the like),
wherein the user information for individual ones of the users includes a user identifier and a contribution balance, wherein the individual contribution balances associated with the individual ones of the users characterize a current chore value of chores completed by the individual ones of the users, wherein the users include a first user, and wherein the user information includes first user information for the first user, wherein the first user information includes a first user identifier of the first user and a first contribution balance associated with the first user (paragraph 0020, discussing a method for creating balance sheets may comprise a way to select the balance sheet for specific users, for specific dates, and the like. Each individual balance sheet may include individual entries for tasks and bonuses, points assigned, points earned,…, the date that tasks where completed, a checklist of tasks completed, and the like…Balance sheets may provide points in an accountable manner which may allow managers and users to keep track of accumulated and used points; paragraph 0057, discussing that there may be a drop-down menu with each individual's name listed. Clicking an individual's name may launch a window for that individual. Generally, each window may correlate with an individual. Each window may display an individual's real name, an individual's user name, an icon associated with an individual, an Add Tasks button to launch a To Do Chart facility, an Add Rewards button to launch a Rewards Catalog facility,…, an Approve button to launch an Approve Rewards facility,…, and the like; paragraph 0058, discussing that the Individual selection dropdown may displays individuals sorted by alphabetical order by first name and the chart drop down may display an individual's chart sorted alphabetically. When selecting an individual, the individual's default chart may be displayed and the chart selection list may be populated with all of the individual's charts sorted alphabetically by name; paragraph 0074, discussing that the Points and Bonus Points Available and Pending scores may display in the upper portion of the score card; paragraph 0062); and
one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions (paragraph 0152, discussing that the hardware may include a general-purpose computer and/or dedicated computing device. The processes may be realized in one or more microprocessors, microcontrollers, embedded microcontrollers, programmable digital signal processors or other programmable device, along with internal and/or external memory) to:
determine current chore values of the chores based on the chore valuing functions and the last performance timings of the chores, wherein a first current chore value for the first chore is determined based on the first chore valuing function and the last performance timing of the first chore; (paragraph 0054, discussing that a user interface for managers may comprise a To Do Chart Facility. The To Do Chart Facility may be used by a manager to create to do lists and printable chore charts for an individual, help individuals to create weekly To Do and Reading list, set goals to motivate an individual to complete tasks, manage goal attainment, grade completed tasks according to how well they were done, assign points values to a task, assign bonus points values to a task, assign rewards commensurate with task completion or goal attainment, assign points deductions for not completing tasks in a timely fashion, satisfactory fashion, or at all,…, approve rewards,…, and the like);
effectuate presentation of the current chore values to the users via individual client computing platforms associated with individual ones of the users, wherein presentation of the current chore values including the first current chore value to the first user via a first client computing platform associated with the first user is effectuated (paragraph 0020, discussing a method for creating balance sheets may comprise a way to select the balance sheet for specific users, for specific dates, and the like. Each individual balance sheet may include individual entries for tasks and bonuses, points assigned, points earned,…, the date that tasks where completed, a checklist of tasks completed, and the like…Balance sheets may provide points in an accountable manner which may allow managers and users to keep track of accumulated and used points; paragraph 0062, discussing that the Balance Sheet view displays positive and negative points transactions in a single view that resembles a check book. Managers may select an individual and a Month. By default the first individual and current month may be displayed…; paragraph 0073, discussing that the Scoreboard may be displayed on a separate web page or displayed as part of an Individual's Home Page. The Scoreboard and/or the Individual's Home Page may be the first web page seen when an individual may log in to the task management system. The Scoreboard may display pending To Do items and assigned tasks. The Scoreboard may display a points balance, bonus points,…, pending points, recently approved points, rejected points, recently approved rewards, pending rewards, rejected rewards, and the like. The Scoreboard may allow an individual to manage points and bonus points accumulation…The Scoreboard 108 may also display points deducted for not completing tasks in a timely fashion, satisfactory fashion, or at all…);
receive a completion request from the first client computing platform, wherein the completion request indicates a request to update the contribution management environment such that completion of the first chore by the first user is reflected, wherein the completion request includes information identifying the first user and information identifying the first chore (paragraph 0068, discussing that a user interface for managers may comprise a Grade Tasks facility for grading tasks that individuals may have completed. Points may be awarded once a task may be graded. Points may be deducted for not completing tasks in a timely fashion, satisfactory fashion, or at all…The Grade Tasks facility may comprise a list of task names, the date the task was completed, the number of points awarded for completion of the task…, and the like; paragraph 0074, discussing that in order to complete a mission, an individual must complete X tasks in Y categories);
transmit, to the individual client computing platforms, an indication of the completion request responsive to receipt of the completion request, wherein the indication identifies the first user, the first chore, and the first current chore value, wherein the indication enables one or more other users to approve the completion request via one or more client computing platforms associated with the one or more other users (paragraph 0057, discussing that each window may display an individual's real name, an individual's user name, an icon associated with an individual, an Add Tasks button to launch a To Do Chart facility, an Add Rewards button to launch a Rewards Catalog facility, a Grade button to launch a Grade Tasks facility, an Approve button to launch an Approve Rewards facility…, and the like; paragraph 0058, discussing that the Grade button may mark the tasks as completed and change the main navigation to the Grade tab, automatically selecting the individual for which a manager may wish to grade tasks. In embodiments, the manager may either mark a task complete using the Mark Complete button or assign a grade to each completed task; paragraph 0080);
receive approval of the completion request from one or more other users via the one or more client computing platforms (paragraph 0057, discussing that each window may display an individual's real name, an individual's user name, an icon associated with an individual, an Add Tasks button to launch a To Do Chart facility, an Add Rewards button to launch a Rewards Catalog facility, a Grade button to launch a Grade Tasks facility, an Approve button to launch an Approve Rewards facility…, and the like; paragraph 0058, discussing that the Grade button may mark the tasks as completed and change the main navigation to the Grade tab, automatically selecting the individual for which a manager may wish to grade tasks. In embodiments, the manager may either mark a task complete using the Mark Complete button or assign a grade to each completed task; paragraph 0061);
determine the approval received is sufficient to update the contribution management environment (paragraph 0068, discussing that a user interface for managers may comprise a Grade Tasks facility for grading tasks that individuals may have completed. Points may be awarded once a task may be graded. Points may be deducted for not completing tasks in a timely fashion, satisfactory fashion, or at all…; paragraph 0070, discussing that the Options facility may comprise Messages, such as notifications about graded tasks, approved rewards, dates on which tasks and rewards were completed and approved, and the like; paragraph 0073); and
update the contribution management environment such that completion of the first chore by the first user is reflected, wherein the contribution management environment is updated responsive to receiving sufficient approval of the completion request (paragraph 0073, discussing that the Scoreboard may display a points balance, bonus points,..., pending points, recently approved points, rejected points, recently approved rewards, pending rewards, rejected rewards, and the like. paragraph 0074, discussing that the Points and Bonus Points Available and Pending scores may display in the upper portion of the score card...Once a message is displayed for new graded tasks, the message state may be cleared and deleted from the database. Weekly Allowance amount and Charity may display in a Rewards space...If new rewards were recently approved, then a message stating that the reward was approved will appear in this area. Once a message is displayed for new approved rewards, the message state may be cleared and deleted from the database. Clicking on the Rewards icon may take an individual to the Rewards page where the individual may redeem rewards),
wherein updating the contribution management environment includes (i) updating the first contribution balance associated with the first user such that the first contribution balance reflects the first current chore value responsive to being updated (paragraph 0074, discussing that the Points and Bonus Points Available and Pending scores may display in the upper portion of the score card...Once a message is displayed for new graded tasks, the message state may be cleared and deleted from the database. Weekly Allowance amount and Charity may display in a Rewards space...If new rewards were recently approved, then a message stating that the reward was approved will appear in this area. Once a message is displayed for new approved rewards, the message state may be cleared and deleted from the database. Clicking on the Rewards icon may take an individual to the Rewards page where the individual may redeem rewards).
Chu does not explicitly teach (ii) updating the first current chore value of the first chore such that the first current chore value is lowered responsive to being updated. However, McCormack in the analogous art of task management systems teaches this concept. McCormack teaches:
(ii) updating the first current chore value of the first chore such that the first current chore value is lowered responsive to being updated (paragraph 0005, discussing that the system includes a set of methods and processes that organize information including but not limited to a rates ticker, a user profile, a task galaxy, a task universe, an administration tab, an action feed and a main menu; paragraph 0010, discussing that the system may also include a main menu that can be used to track task actions that the user performs. Tasks contain information that users use to perform actions. Such actions include rates that assign a numerical value to the action type. Each time a user performs an action the rates ticker updates based on the rate associated with the action; paragraph 0075, discussing that every time a user performs a task action the system tracks and tallies the action so that the user can see their totals as displayed. The system may also provide an incentive for users. In each task action type, there are “rates” that represent a value a user receives each time they complete a task action. The rates differ per type depending on the current “task economy” but each type of task action also has levels, wherein if the user performs a certain amount of each task type (referred to as “stock”) they reach the next level that provides the user a higher rate (for example “2 points” for each action, or maybe “20 points”); paragraph 0126, discussing that the user will be able to observe the current point rate for completion and addition of various task types, and thereby know the value of the points received when a particular action is taken. The ticker may be shown scrolling at the bottom of the user's page. Global rates are the number of points added to the stock of the user who performs the action type. Each symbol represents a task action type. For example, as shown, if a user performs the “complete” action type, they will receive the global rate 34 points. Global rates may fluctuate by equations, which for example may have two main functions that balance each other. When a user completes a task the system reduces the task complete global rate by the amount x/#of tasks of all users. But the system may also at the same time increases the create task action global rate by the same amount…; paragraph 0222, discussing that the analysis systems including the Gdata (Group data for Org Galaxies) and Pdata (Personal data analysis for Personal Galaxies) are built to provide immediate feedback on the user's performance. Through the Rhistory, Thistory tabs in particular the users actions are tracked and update their User profile in real time).
Examiner notes that McCormack, in addition to Chu as cited above, also teaches receive a completion request from the first client computing platform, wherein the completion request indicates a request to update the contribution management environment such that completion of the first chore by the first user is reflected, wherein the completion request includes information identifying the first user and information identifying the first chore (paragraph 0619, discussing that the most important part of auditing will come from completing the tasks. Users are asked to provide evidence for their task completion…; paragraph 0620, discussing that the Evidence box pops up when a user clicks on a task and selects the Complete TAT. [0621] a. Dialog box: This is where User types in an explanation of why the task is considered complete and can reference to the attachments; paragraph 0623: “c. Submit Button: User clicks this and it sends the description and attachments to the following: [0624] A. Previous Owner or Creator for verification in their THistory [0625] B. To People in that persons Network for several verifications. [0626] C. To People connected to this task in a Task Tree [0627] iii. Reporting a Task To Audit Committee: Users can report a task that is marked for Completion from their THistory or from looking up the History of Completed Tasks from that user and clicking the report button there. A dialog box pops up when a User wants to report a task [0628] a. Task Code: Shows the Unique Task Code being reported [0629] b. Description Box: Gives a place for a user to describe why they are reporting the task.”).
Chu is directed towards systems and methods of managing tasks assigned to an individual. McCormack describes a task management system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards task management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chu with McCormack because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for task management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (system and method to manage the completion of chores), and because modifying Chu to include McCormack’s feature for including updating the first current chore value of the first chore such that the first current chore value is lowered responsive to being updated, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of keeping information processing of the user intuitive and effective (McCormack at paragraph 0139); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 4, the Chu-McCormack combination teaches the system of claim 1. Chu further teaches wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to effectuate presentation of the current chore values of the chores via one or more client computing platforms responsive to the contribution management environment being updated (paragraph 0020, discussing a method for creating balance sheets may comprise a way to select the balance sheet for specific users, for specific dates, and the like. Each individual balance sheet may include individual entries for tasks and bonuses, points assigned, points earned,…, the date that tasks where completed, a checklist of tasks completed, and the like…Balance sheets may provide points in an accountable manner which may allow managers and users to keep track of accumulated and used points; paragraph 0062, discussing that the Balance Sheet view displays positive and negative points transactions in a single view that resembles a check book. Managers may select an individual and a Month. By default the first individual and current month may be displayed…; paragraph 0073, discussing that the Scoreboard may be displayed on a separate web page or displayed as part of an Individual's Home Page. The Scoreboard and/or the Individual's Home Page may be the first web page seen when an individual may log in to the task management system. The Scoreboard may display pending To Do items and assigned tasks. The Scoreboard may display a points balance, bonus points,…, pending points, recently approved points, rejected points, recently approved rewards, pending rewards, rejected rewards, and the like. The Scoreboard may allow an individual to manage points and bonus points accumulation…The Scoreboard 108 may also display points deducted for not completing tasks in a timely fashion, satisfactory fashion, or at all…; paragraph 0074, discussing that the Points and Bonus Points Available and Pending scores may display in the upper portion of the score card...Once a message is displayed for new graded tasks, the message state may be cleared and deleted from the database. Weekly Allowance amount and Charity may display in a Rewards space...If new rewards were recently approved, then a message stating that the reward was approved will appear in this area. Once a message is displayed for new approved rewards, the message state may be cleared and deleted from the database. Clicking on the Rewards icon may take an individual to the Rewards page where the individual may redeem rewards).
As per claim 5, the Chu-McCormack combination teaches the system of claim 1. Chu further teaches wherein an individual contribution balance reflects current chore value of chores completed by the individual ones of the users during a sliding window of time or during a current window of time, wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to effectuate presentation of the contribution balances via one or more client computing platforms (paragraph 0020, discussing a method for creating balance sheets may comprise a way to select the balance sheet for specific users, for specific dates, and the like. Each individual balance sheet may include individual entries for tasks and bonuses, points assigned, points earned,…, the date that tasks where completed, a checklist of tasks completed, and the like. The balance sheet may allow a view of monthly totals, such as monthly point totals, monthly bonus point totals; average grade for tasks; final balances, such as final total points, final total bonus points, final average grade; and the like. Balance sheets may provide points in an accountable manner which may allow managers and users to keep track of accumulated and used points; paragraph 0058, discussing that the print button may display a printable version of the chart currently in view for the selected week; paragraph 0062, discussing that the Balance Sheet view displays positive and negative points transactions in a single view that resembles a check book. Managers may select an individual and a Month. By default the first individual and current month may be displayed…; paragraph 0073, discussing that the Scoreboard may be displayed on a separate web page or displayed as part of an Individual's Home Page. The Scoreboard and/or the Individual's Home Page may be the first web page seen when an individual may log in to the task management system. The Scoreboard may display pending To Do items and assigned tasks. The Scoreboard may display a points balance, bonus points,…, pending points, recently approved points, rejected points, recently approved rewards, pending rewards, rejected rewards, and the like. The Scoreboard may allow an individual to manage points and bonus points accumulation…The Scoreboard 108 may also display points deducted for not completing tasks in a timely fashion, satisfactory fashion, or at all…; paragraph 0074, discussing that the Points and Bonus Points Available and Pending scores may display in the upper portion of the score card...Once a message is displayed for new graded tasks, the message state may be cleared and deleted from the database. Weekly Allowance amount and Charity may display in a Rewards space...If new rewards were recently approved, then a message stating that the reward was approved will appear in this area. Once a message is displayed for new approved rewards, the message state may be cleared and deleted from the database. Clicking on the Rewards icon may take an individual to the Rewards page where the individual may redeem rewards).
As per claim 6, the Chu-McCormack combination teaches the system of claim 1. Chu further teaches wherein an individual contribution balance reflects current chore value of chores completed by an individual user during a sliding window of time or during a current window of time, wherein the environment information includes an indication of a window duration, wherein the window duration denotes a length of time of windows for tracking contribution balances of the users, wherein the user information includes individual contribution balance requirements (paragraph 0020, discussing a method for creating balance sheets may comprise a way to select the balance sheet for specific users, for specific dates, and the like. Each individual balance sheet may include individual entries for tasks and bonuses, points assigned, points earned,…, the date that tasks where completed, a checklist of tasks completed, and the like. The balance sheet may allow a view of monthly totals, such as monthly point totals, monthly bonus point totals; average grade for tasks; final balances, such as final total points, final total bonus points, final average grade; and the like. Balance sheets may provide points in an accountable manner which may allow managers and users to keep track of accumulated and used points; paragraph 0058, discussing that the print button may display a printable version of the chart currently in view for the selected week; paragraph 0062, discussing that the Balance Sheet view displays positive and negative points transactions in a single view that resembles a check book. Managers may select an individual and a Month. By default the first individual and current month may be displayed…; paragraph 0073, discussing that the Scoreboard may be displayed on a separate web page or displayed as part of an Individual's Home Page. The Scoreboard and/or the Individual's Home Page may be the first web page seen when an individual may log in to the task management system. The Scoreboard may display pending To Do items and assigned tasks. The Scoreboard may display a points balance, bonus points,…, pending points, recently approved points, rejected points, recently approved rewards, pending rewards, rejected rewards, and the like. The Scoreboard may allow an individual to manage points and bonus points accumulation…The Scoreboard 108 may also display points deducted for not completing tasks in a timely fashion, satisfactory fashion, or at all…; paragraph 0074, discussing that the Points and Bonus Points Available and Pending scores may display in the upper portion of the score card...Once a message is displayed for new graded tasks, the message state may be cleared and deleted from the database. Weekly Allowance amount and Charity may display in a Rewards space...If new rewards were recently approved, then a message stating that the reward was approved will appear in this area. Once a message is displayed for new approved rewards, the message state may be cleared and deleted from the database. Clicking on the Rewards icon may take an individual to the Rewards page where the individual may redeem rewards), wherein the individual contribution balance requirements denote minimum contribution balances to be associated with individual ones of the users during individual windows of time, wherein the first user information includes a first contribution balance requirement denoting a minimum contribution balance to be associated with the first user at the conclusion of a particular window of time (paragraph 0080, discussing that in an embodiment, a manager may indicate a threshold number of tasks to complete, points to accumulate, or a combination thereof in order to gain access to a game. Tasks may need to be graded in order to qualify for the threshold. For example, a manager may indicate a certain number of tasks to complete for a particular day in order to gain access to a game. If an individual does not complete the required number of tasks for that day, they may not gain access to the game for that day. In another example, a manager may indicate that either a threshold number of points be accumulated or a threshold number of tasks be completed in order to gain access to game play. In this example, an individual may gain access to game play by completing a small number of high points value tasks or by completing a larger number of low points value tasks.).
As per claim 7, the Chu-McCormack combination teaches the system of claim 6. Chu further teaches wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to: determine a first window has concluded, wherein determining the first window has concluded includes identifying an amount of time since the individual contribution balances associated with individual ones of the users have been reset and determining the amount of time is greater than or equal to the window duration (paragraph 0066, discussing that there may be a threshold time for inactivation, such as inactivity for more than 15 minutes. If an individual exceeds the amount of time allowed, then a message may be displayed to the individual; paragraph 0075, discussing that the To Do Management facility may allow an individual to create To Do and Reading list to earn points, create a Goals list of rewards to save up for, mark progress towards saving up points towards a goal, mark progress of a task completion, mark tasks on a To Do list as complete for a manager to grade, and the like. The To Do Management facility may display all charts created by the manager for an individual or by the individual themselves, such as a To Do Chart, a Chore Chart,…, and the like. The To Do Management facility may allow individuals to earn bonus points for tasks on a To Do list created by an individual or for any self-assigned task. In the display, different calendar views for the charts may be accessed from a drop down menu. For example, the Chore Chart may be viewed by the current day, by a specific day, by a date range, by the current week, by the current month, by the year, and the like. The different calendar views available in the To Do Management facility may be interactive; paragraph 0102, discussing that characters may choose to deposit their points or game tokens into a savings account at the local bank. Interest may be earned on the points and/or game tokens. Different interest rates will be offered to characters based upon the amount of points and/or game tokens and length of time that the character chooses to save, such as Deposit 100 points, get 110 points after 10 days; Deposit 100 points, get 130 points after 20 days; Deposit 100 points, get 200 points after 50 days, and the like. When a character deposits game points into the bank, he/she may not use the game points until after the savings time period has expired. In an embodiment, only paid subscribers may deposit points into the bank. In an embodiment, the ability to deposit points and/or game tokens may be determined by a game level, a points or game token balance, the type and/or number of tasks completed, and the like),
determine the first contribution balance is less than the first contribution balance requirement responsive to determining the first window has concluded (paragraph 0054, discussing that the To Do Chart Facility may be used by a manager to create to do lists and printable chore charts for an individual, help individuals to create weekly To Do and Reading list, set goals to motivate an individual to complete tasks, manage goal attainment, grade completed tasks according to how well they were done, assign points values to a task, assign bonus points values to a task, assign rewards commensurate with task completion or goal attainment, assign points deductions for not completing tasks in a timely fashion, satisfactory fashion, or at all; paragraph 0073);
transmit an indication that the first contribution balance is less than the first contribution balance requirement to one or more client computing platforms (paragraph 0054, discussing that the To Do Chart Facility may be used by a manager to create to do lists and printable chore charts for an individual, help individuals to create weekly To Do and Reading list, set goals to motivate an individual to complete tasks, manage goal attainment, grade completed tasks according to how well they were done, assign points values to a task, assign bonus points values to a task, assign rewards commensurate with task completion or goal attainment, assign points deductions for not completing tasks in a timely fashion, satisfactory fashion, or at all; paragraph 0073, discussing that the Scoreboard may also display points deducted for not completing tasks in a timely fashion, satisfactory fashion, or at all); and
reset the contribution balances of the users of the contribution management environment such that the contribution balances reflect the users have not completed any chores during a second window (paragraph 0054, discussing that the To Do Chart Facility may be used by a manager to create to do lists and printable chore charts for an individual, help individuals to create weekly To Do and Reading list, set goals to motivate an individual to complete tasks, manage goal attainment, grade completed tasks according to how well they were done, assign points values to a task, assign bonus points values to a task, assign rewards commensurate with task completion or goal attainment, assign points deductions for not completing tasks in a timely fashion, satisfactory fashion, or at all; paragraph 0068, discussing that a user interface for managers may comprise a Grade Tasks facility for grading tasks that individuals may have completed. Points may be awarded once a task may be graded. Points may be deducted for not completing tasks in a timely fashion, satisfactory fashion, or at all. Points may also be deducted for poor behavior. Such points deductions may be reversed automatically when a task may be completed or at a manager's discretion).
As per claim 8, the Chu-McCormack combination teaches the system of claim 6. Chu further teaches wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to: receive a break request from a client computing platform associated with the first user, wherein the break request indicates a duration of absence of the first user from the contribution management environment during an individual window (paragraph 0051, discussing that a manager may be an employer, or the like. The methods and systems described may facilitate a manager setting up an allowance program for individuals and to motivate them to achieve manageable goals. An individual may be a kid, child, dependent, ward, minor, student, sibling, employee, or the like. The methods and systems described may facilitate an individual earning points for doing chores,…, and the like. The points may be used to obtain privileges, such as a sleepover, a chore waiver, a vacation day, and the like);
determine the break request is a valid break request, wherein determining validity of the break request includes determining whether the duration of absence is greater than or equal to a minimum break duration and/or less than or equal to a maximum break duration (paragraph 0055, discussing that the user interface for managers may comprise the Rewards Catalog facility. A Rewards Catalog may comprise a set of virtual items, real world items, downloadable items, privileges, money, and the like. In an embodiment, points may be used to exchange for virtual items, privileges, and the like. For example, points may be exchanged for the privilege of a sleepover, a chore waiver, a vacation day, and the like; and items, such as Internet time, television time, real world items, downloadable items, virtual items, a character upgrade in a virtual world game, and the like);
update the first chore valuing function such that growth over time of a first chore value of the first chore is decreased during the individual window (paragraph 0051, discussing that a manager may be an employer, or the like. The methods and systems described may facilitate a manager setting up an allowance program for individuals and to motivate them to achieve manageable goals. An individual may be a kid, child, dependent, ward, minor, student, sibling, employee, or the like. The methods and systems described may facilitate an individual earning points for doing chores,…, and the like. The points may be used to obtain privileges, such as a sleepover, a chore waiver, a vacation day, and the like); and
update the first contribution balance requirement such that the first contribution balance requirement is lowered to reflect the duration of absence of the first user (paragraph 0055, discussing that the user interface for managers may comprise the Rewards Catalog facility. A Rewards Catalog may comprise a set of virtual items, real world items, downloadable items, privileges, money, and the like. In an embodiment, points may be used to exchange for virtual items, privileges, and the like. For example, points may be exchanged for the privilege of a sleepover, a chore waiver, a vacation day, and the like; and items, such as Internet time, television time, real world items, downloadable items, virtual items, a character upgrade in a virtual world game, and the like…There may also be a redeem function associated with allowance, where the redeem function may redeem and approve the allowance at the same time).
As per claim 11, the Chu-McCormack combination teaches the system of claim 1. Chu further teaches wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to: receive a chore modification request from one or more client computing platforms associated with a user, wherein the chore modification request indicates a request to update the contribution management environment such that one or more of addition, removal, and/or change of one or more chores is reflected, wherein the chore modification request includes a subset of chore information for the one or more chores (paragraph 0054, discussing that managers may select from categories of popular tasks or enter their own tasks. Managers may remove tasks or copy tasks from previously created charts. An algorithm may be used to recommend a task assignment; paragraph 0057, discussing that each window may display an individual's real name, an individual's user name, an icon associated with an individual, an Add Tasks button to launch a To Do Chart facility, an Add Rewards button to launch a Rewards Catalog facility, a Grade button to launch a Grade Tasks facility, an Approve button to launch an Approve Rewards facility, an Add Goals button, and the like. The user interface may comprise the Add Goals button);
receive approval of the chore modification request from one or more via the one or more client computing platforms (paragraph 0054, discussing that managers may select from categories of popular tasks or enter their own tasks. Managers may remove tasks or copy tasks from previously created charts);
determine the approval received is sufficient to update the contribution management environment (paragraph 0054, discussing that managers may select from categories of popular tasks or enter their own tasks. Managers may remove tasks or copy tasks from previously created charts; paragraph 0056, discussing that managers may preview the types of rewards that may be included in each category. If a static catalog may be selected, managers may select rewards from popular categories or enter their own rewards. Managers may also remove rewards…The Approve Rewards facility may allow a manager to approve, a reward chosen by an individual, view the date the reward was chosen, change the number of points required to obtain the reward); and
update the contribution management environment such that the one or more of addition, removal, and/or change of the one or more chores is reflected, wherein updating the contribution management environment such that (i) addition of the one or more chores is reflected includes updating the contribution management environment such that the one or more chores are managed by the contribution management environment,(ii) removal of the one or more chores is reflected includes updating the contribution management environment such that the one or more chores are no longer managed by the contribution management environment, and/or (iii) change of the one or more chores is reflected includes updating the contribution management environment such that chore information for the one or more chores is changed (paragraph 0054, discussing that managers may select from categories of popular tasks or enter their own tasks. Managers may remove tasks or copy tasks from previously created charts).
Examiner notes that McCormack, in addition to Chu as cited above, also teaches wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to: receive a chore modification request from one or more client computing platforms associated with a user, wherein the chore modification request indicates a request to update the contribution management environment such that one or more of addition, removal, and/or change of one or more chores is reflected, wherein the chore modification request includes a subset of chore information for the one or more chores (paragraph 0006, discussing that task galaxies can be updated and the size, shape and location of data displayed in the task galaxy can be changed; paragraph 0499, discussing that the System has operating functionality like that of the Stock Market. Users can trade tasks and these transactions must be coordinated much like an Online Stock Brokerage. This is where the user manages requests to them and their requests to others: [0501] i. Brokerage Page: This is where both the THistory and RHistory are side by side on the screen showing what tasks are being asked of the user and which ones the user has made requests on. [0502] a. THistory: This is the page where the user manages all the requests others make to them. Initiated by others. Every time another user performs a TAT on a task that this user owns, a notification is sent to them to accept, deny or modify... [0505] VIII. Modify Button: User can suggest a modification of any variables or tasks that would result of TAT. Other user is then notified and can accept or modify changes. IX. View More Button: The variables of tasks involved are hidden for simplified view of cell. User can click this and expand cell to show all variables in tasks; paragraph 0013).
21. Claims 2-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of McCormack, in further view of Mattar, Patent No.: US 12,056,579 B1, [hereinafter Mattar].
As per claim 2, the Chu-McCormack combination teaches the system of claim 1. Chu further teaches wherein a second chore is managed by the contribution management environment, wherein the environment information includes second chore information for the second chore, wherein the second chore information includes a second chore identifier of the second chore, a baseline second chore value of the second chore, last performance timing of the second chore, and a second chore valuing function (paragraph 0018, discussing a method for task management comprising creating or editing a task chart for an individual, selecting a task to place in the task chart, providing a timeline for completion of the selected task, selecting a points amounts for each task, and naming the chart and/or selecting an icon to associate with the task chart; paragraph 0020, discussing that each individual balance sheet may include individual entries for tasks and bonuses, points assigned, points earned, grades given for each entry, the date that tasks where completed, a checklist of tasks completed, and the like…; paragraph 0051, discussing that the systems described may facilitate a manager setting up an allowance program for individuals and to motivate them to achieve manageable goals... The systems described may facilitate an individual earning points for doing chores...Individuals may earn points associated with successful completion of an assigned task. Individuals may have points deducted from a points balance for not completing tasks on time, to a manager's satisfaction, and the like; paragraph 0068, discussing that a user interface for managers may comprise a Grade Tasks facility for grading tasks that individuals may have completed. Points may be awarded once a task may be graded. Points may be deducted for not completing tasks in a timely fashion, satisfactory fashion, or at all…The Grade Tasks facility may comprise a list of task names, the date the task was completed, the number of points awarded for completion of the task…, and the like).
The Chu-McCormack combination wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to: receive a priority increase request indicating a request to prioritize the first chore from one or more client computing platforms responsive to receipt of the priority increase request, wherein the priority increase request includes the first chore identifier and one or more chore identifiers of one or more other chores, wherein the one or more chore identifiers includes the second chore identifier; update a subset of chore information for the one or more other chores, wherein updating the subset of the chore information for the one or more other chores includes lowering one or more baseline chore values of the one or more other chores and/or the growth over time of the chore values of the one or more other chores, wherein the baseline second chore value and/or the second chore valuing function is lowered; and update a subset of the first chore information, wherein updating the subset of the first chore information includes increasing the first baseline chore value and/or the first chore valuing function, wherein such increase is reflective of the lowering of the baseline chore values and/or the lowering of the growth over time of the chore values of the one or more other chores. However, Mattar in the analogous art of task allocation systems teaches these concepts. Mattar teaches:
wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to: receive a priority increase request indicating a request to prioritize the first chore from one or more client computing platforms responsive to receipt of the priority increase request, wherein the priority increase request includes the first chore identifier and one or more chore identifiers of one or more other chores, wherein the one or more chore identifiers includes the second chore identifier (abstract, discussing intelligent priority evaluators configured to perform a method that prioritizes tasks submitted by various users; col. 5, lines 1-21, discussing intelligent priority evaluators configured to prioritize tasks submitted by various users. The intelligent priority evaluator can collect, calculate, and use various criteria to determine a reward score in order to prioritize one task over another, such as for dynamic scheduling purposes. Determining reward scores and dynamic scheduling can be performed in addition to receiving user designations of priority. The intelligent priority evaluator can allocate the computing resources more efficiently compared to human designated instructions and can better prioritize the completion of more important tasks);
update a subset of chore information for the one or more other chores, wherein updating the subset of the chore information for the one or more other chores includes lowering one or more baseline chore values of the one or more other chores and/or the growth over time of the chore values of the one or more other chores, wherein the baseline second chore value and/or the second chore valuing function is lowered (col. 4, lines 26-38, discussing an artificial intelligence system that can dynamically prioritize and schedule allocation and usage of computing resources. The artificial intelligence system can use an intelligent priority evaluator configured to prioritize tasks submitted by various users. The artificial intelligence system can collect, calculate, and use various criteria to determine a reward score in order to prioritize task, such as for dynamic scheduling purposes. The artificial intelligence system can more efficiently make priority decisions compared to user-based prioritization systems, and can be used with dynamic scheduling applications to better optimize the completion of computing tasks; col.11, lines 4-13, discussing that the intelligent priority evaluator system can also use information about available computing resources to reduce the reward score for a task that requires computing resources exceeding currently available capacities and for tasks that, when executed, would lower remaining computing resources to levels likely to prevent additional tasks from executing); and
update a subset of the first chore information, wherein updating the subset of the first chore information includes increasing the first baseline chore value and/or the first chore valuing function, wherein such increase is reflective of the lowering of the baseline chore values and/or the lowering of the growth over time of the chore values of the one or more other chores (col. 6, lines 54-67 & col. 7, lines 1-10, discussing that the intelligent priority evaluator can access quantitative information for each task in order to determine a reward score for each task. This can include accessing utility factors, resource costs, user designations, and additional data. The intelligent priority evaluator can use the reward scores for each task to determine a schedule that prioritizes certain tasks over other tasks. In some embodiments, the intelligent priority evaluator can schedule the higher priority tasks earlier, allocate more resources to the higher priority tasks, and/or better optimize the use of the available computing resources based on the reward scores; col. 13, lines 17-25, discussing that such systems can determine, for example, that a task due in 10 hours and takes only 30 minutes to complete can be pushed back toward the deadline, even if users indicate preferences for earlier completion times; col. 13, lines 40-44, discussing that the intelligent priority evaluator can better identify instances where high-priority tasks scheduled for certain times actually need to be completed at those times; col. 14, lines 61-67 & col. 15, lines 1-11, discussing that each time that a task is submitted for execution, an intelligent priority evaluator can analyze the submitted task, determine a reward score, and dynamically schedule the allocation of computing resources based at least in part on the determined reward score. The intelligent priority evaluator can determine a reward score based on various prioritization factors, such as, for example, a time that the tasks were submitted, a user designated priority of a task, a type of task, and/or other prioritization factor).
The Chu-McCormack combination describes features related to managing tasks. Mattar describes a task allocation system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards task management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Chu-McCormack combination with Mattar because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for task management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (system and method to manage the completion of chores), and because modifying the Chu-McCormack combination to include Mattar’s features for including wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to: receive a priority increase request indicating a request to prioritize the first chore from one or more client computing platforms responsive to receipt of the priority increase request, wherein the priority increase request includes the first chore identifier and one or more chore identifiers of one or more other chores, wherein the one or more chore identifiers includes the second chore identifier; update a subset of chore information for the one or more other chores, wherein updating the subset of the chore information for the one or more other chores includes lowering one or more baseline chore values of the one or more other chores and/or the growth over time of the chore values of the one or more other chores, wherein the baseline second chore value and/or the second chore valuing function is lowered; and update a subset of the first chore information, wherein updating the subset of the first chore information includes increasing the first baseline chore value and/or the first chore valuing function, wherein such increase is reflective of the lowering of the baseline chore values and/or the lowering of the growth over time of the chore values of the one or more other chores, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of better prioritizing the completion of more important tasks (Mattar at col., 5, lines 16-18); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 3, the Chu-McCormack combination teaches the system of claim 1. Chu further teaches wherein a second chore is managed by the contribution management environment, wherein the environment information includes second chore information for the second chore, wherein the second chore information includes a second chore identifier of the second chore, a current second chore value of the second chore, last performance timing of the second chore, and a second chore valuing function (paragraph 0018, discussing a method for task management comprising creating or editing a task chart for an individual, selecting a task to place in the task chart, providing a timeline for completion of the selected task, selecting a points amounts for each task, and naming the chart and/or selecting an icon to associate with the task chart; paragraph 0020, discussing that each individual balance sheet may include individual entries for tasks and bonuses, points assigned, points earned, grades given for each entry, the date that tasks where completed, a checklist of tasks completed, and the like…; paragraph 0051, discussing that the systems described may facilitate a manager setting up an allowance program for individuals and to motivate them to achieve manageable goals... The systems described may facilitate an individual earning points for doing chores...Individuals may earn points associated with successful completion of an assigned task. Individuals may have points deducted from a points balance for not completing tasks on time, to a manager's satisfaction, and the like; paragraph 0068, discussing that a user interface for managers may comprise a Grade Tasks facility for grading tasks that individuals may have completed. Points may be awarded once a task may be graded. Points may be deducted for not completing tasks in a timely fashion, satisfactory fashion, or at all…The Grade Tasks facility may comprise a list of task names, the date the task was completed, the number of points awarded for completion of the task…, and the like).
The Chu-McCormack combination does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to: receive a priority decrease request indicating a request to decrease priority of the first chore from one or more client computing platforms, wherein the priority decrease request includes the first chore identifier and one or more chore identifiers of one or more other chores, wherein the one or more chore identifiers includes the second chore identifier; update a subset of chore information for the one or more other chores, wherein updating the subset of the chore information for the one or more other chores includes increasing one or more baseline chore values of the one or more other chores and/or the growth over time of the chore values of the one or more other chores, wherein the baseline second chore value and/or the second chore valuing function is increased; and update a subset of the first chore information, wherein updating the subset of the first chore information includes decreasing the first baseline chore value and/or the first chore valuing function, wherein such decrease is reflective of the increase of the baseline chore values and/or the increase of the growth over time of the chore values of the one or more other chores. However, Mattar in the analogous art of task allocation systems teaches these concepts. Mattar teaches:
wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to: receive a priority decrease request indicating a request to decrease priority of the first chore from one or more client computing platforms, wherein the priority decrease request includes the first chore identifier and one or more chore identifiers of one or more other chores, wherein the one or more chore identifiers includes the second chore identifier (col. 5, lines 1-21, discussing intelligent priority evaluators configured to prioritize tasks submitted by various users. The intelligent priority evaluator can collect, calculate, and use various criteria to determine a reward score in order to prioritize one task over another, such as for dynamic scheduling purposes. Determining reward scores and dynamic scheduling can be performed in addition to receiving user designations of priority. The intelligent priority evaluator can allocate the computing resources more efficiently compared to human designated instructions and can better prioritize the completion of more important tasks);
update a subset of chore information for the one or more other chores, wherein updating the subset of the chore information for the one or more other chores includes increasing one or more baseline chore values of the one or more other chores and/or the growth over time of the chore values of the one or more other chores, wherein the baseline second chore value and/or the second chore valuing function is increased (col. 4, lines 26-38, discussing an artificial intelligence system that can dynamically prioritize and schedule allocation and usage of computing resources. The artificial intelligence system can use an intelligent priority evaluator configured to prioritize tasks submitted by various users. The artificial intelligence system can collect, calculate, and use various criteria to determine a reward score in order to prioritize task, such as for dynamic scheduling purposes. The artificial intelligence system can more efficiently make priority decisions compared to user-based prioritization systems, and can be used with dynamic scheduling applications to better optimize the completion of computing tasks; col.11, lines 4-13, discussing that the intelligent priority evaluator system can also use information about available computing resources to reduce the reward score for a task that requires computing resources exceeding currently available capacities and for tasks that, when executed, would lower remaining computing resources to levels likely to prevent additional tasks from executing; col. 14, lines 61-67 & col. 15, lines 1-11, discussing that each time that a task is submitted for execution, an intelligent priority evaluator can analyze the submitted task, determine a reward score, and dynamically schedule the allocation of computing resources based at least in part on the determined reward score. The intelligent priority evaluator can determine a reward score based on various prioritization factors, such as, for example, a time that the tasks were submitted, a user designated priority of a task, a type of task, and/or other prioritization factor); and
update a subset of the first chore information, wherein updating the subset of the first chore information includes decreasing the first baseline chore value and/or the first chore valuing function, wherein such decrease is reflective of the increase of the baseline chore values and/or the increase of the growth over time of the chore values of the one or more other chores (col. 6, lines 54-67 & col. 7, lines 1-10, discussing that the intelligent priority evaluator can access quantitative information for each task in order to determine a reward score for each task. This can include accessing utility factors, resource costs, user designations, and additional data. The intelligent priority evaluator can use the reward scores for each task to determine a schedule that prioritizes certain tasks over other tasks. In some embodiments, the intelligent priority evaluator can schedule the higher priority tasks earlier, allocate more resources to the higher priority tasks, and/or better optimize the use of the available computing resources based on the reward scores; col. 13, lines 17-25, discussing that such systems can determine, for example, that a task due in 10 hours and takes only 30 minutes to complete can be pushed back toward the deadline, even if users indicate preferences for earlier completion times).
The Chu-McCormack combination describes features related to managing tasks. Mattar describes a task allocation system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards task management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Chu-McCormack combination with Mattar because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for task management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (system and method to manage the completion of chores), and because modifying the Chu-McCormack combination to include Mattar’s features for including wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to: receive a priority decrease request indicating a request to decrease priority of the first chore from one or more client computing platforms, wherein the priority decrease request includes the first chore identifier and one or more chore identifiers of one or more other chores, wherein the one or more chore identifiers includes the second chore identifier; update a subset of chore information for the one or more other chores, wherein updating the subset of the chore information for the one or more other chores includes increasing one or more baseline chore values of the one or more other chores and/or the growth over time of the chore values of the one or more other chores, wherein the baseline second chore value and/or the second chore valuing function is increased; and update a subset of the first chore information, wherein updating the subset of the first chore information includes decreasing the first baseline chore value and/or the first chore valuing function, wherein such decrease is reflective of the increase of the baseline chore values and/or the increase of the growth over time of the chore values of the one or more other chores, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of better prioritizing the completion of more important tasks (Mattar at col., 5, lines 16-18); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 9, the Chu-McCormack combination teaches the system of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by the Chu-McCormack combination, Mattar in the analogous art of task allocation systems teaches wherein the chore information for the individual ones of the chores includes a priority value such that the first chore information includes a first priority value, wherein a priority value characterizes priority of an individual chore within the contribution management environment, wherein priority values of the chores managed by the contribution management environment sum to a constant value at a given time (abstract, discussing intelligent priority evaluators configured to perform a method that prioritizes tasks submitted by various users; col. 5, lines 1-21, discussing intelligent priority evaluators configured to prioritize tasks submitted by various users. The intelligent priority evaluator can collect, calculate, and use various criteria to determine a reward score in order to prioritize one task over another, such as for dynamic scheduling purposes. Determining reward scores and dynamic scheduling can be performed in addition to receiving user designations of priority; col. 6, lines 54-67 & col. 7, lines 1-10, discussing that the intelligent priority evaluator can access quantitative information for each task in order to determine a reward score for each task. This can include accessing utility factors, resource costs, user designations, and additional data. The intelligent priority evaluator can use the reward scores for each task to determine a schedule that prioritizes certain tasks over other tasks. In some embodiments, the intelligent priority evaluator can schedule the higher priority tasks earlier, allocate more resources to the higher priority tasks, and/or better optimize the use of the available computing resources based on the reward scores; col. 9, lines 59-61, discussing that scheduling restraints can be used for scheduling tasks after a priority score is determined; col. 12, lines 66-67 & col. 13, lines 1-3, discussing that subjective users may impose to have tasks done by 9 a.m. the next day, and furthermore, on a priority scale of 1 to 100, everyone might rank their own tasks as 100).
The Chu-McCormack combination describes features related to managing tasks. Mattar describes a task allocation system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards task management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Chu-McCormack combination with Mattar because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for task management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (system and method to manage the completion of chores), and because modifying the Chu-McCormack combination to include Mattar’s feature for including wherein the chore information for the individual ones of the chores includes a priority value such that the first chore information includes a first priority value, wherein a priority value characterizes priority of an individual chore within the contribution management environment, wherein priority values of the chores managed by the contribution management environment sum to a constant value at a given time, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of better prioritizing the completion of more important tasks (Mattar at col., 5, lines 16-18); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
22. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of McCormack, in further view of Bencke et al., Pub. No.: US 2017/0323233 A1, [hereinafter Bencke].
As per claim 10, the Chu-McCormack combination teaches the system of claim 2. Although not explicitly taught by the Chu-McCormack combination, Bencke in the analogous art of tasking systems teaches wherein determining the approval received is sufficient to update the contribution management environment includes determining approval has been received from a number of users greater than or equal to a minimum number of users required for approval of the completion request (paragraph 0002, discussing that the disclosure generally relates to using crowdsourcing to solve large data problems; paragraph 0068, discussing that in one example implementation when a user's accuracy on all submitted work does not meet the desired quality threshold, the system would determine how many instances of a general review by users who have qualified to do general review on a given task that answer would need to pass before the probability that the answer is actually correct finally meets the threshold. For example, the number of instances could be computed by selecting the minimum number of users who must view and accept the answer as being correct before the probability that the answer is correct given that it passed all reviews would exceed the threshold).
The Chu-McCormack combination describes features related to managing tasks. Bencke describes a tasking system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards task management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Chu-McCormack combination with Bencke because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for task management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (system and method to manage the completion of chores), and because modifying the Chu-McCormack combination to include Bencke’s feature for including wherein determining the approval received is sufficient to update the contribution management environment includes determining approval has been received from a number of users greater than or equal to a minimum number of users required for approval of the completion request, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing the necessary quality, speed, scale and cost, with an acceptable level of effort (Bencke at paragraph 0021); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kroeger, Pub. No.: US 2002/0143594 A1 – describes a system, method and article of manufacture for alerting a manager of a critical outstanding task.
Matson et al., Patent No.: US 12,093,859 B1 – describes systems and methods to measure and visualize workload for individual users.
Aery et al., Patent No.: US 11,922,445 B1 – describes a GUI that is updated to graphically indicate the sub-user the number of tasks completed within a particular time period and the rewards or incentives received as a result.
Haraty, Mona, Joanna McGrenere, and Charlotte Tang. "How personal task management differs across individuals." International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 88 (2016): 13-37 – describes that a large variety of ways in which people manage their tasks and that many people still rely on general-purpose tools such as a text file for tracking their tasks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Darlene Garcia-Guerra whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on 571- 270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights