DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a NON-FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/492,271 filed on 10/23/2023, in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on January 23, 2026. Claims 1-2 and 5-20 are pending in this application, and 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 18/492,271 filed 10/23/2023 claims foreign priority to 10-2022-0141772, filed 10/28/2022.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed January 23, 2026, Applicant amended claims 1, 2, and 5-20, and cancelled claims 3 and 4. No new claims were presented for examination.
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); accordingly, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are presented in light of the claim amendments.
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 2, and 5-20 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.
101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed December 18, 2025, have been fully considered.
8. Applicant submits “ As set forth in the present specification, in conventional systems, users must manually search lists of work requests and handle each individual work request one by one, even when multiple requests require the same type of handling (e.g., multiple receipts, approvals, or data corrections), leading to significant inefficiency. In contrast, the claimed method and apparatus perform the following: 1. programmatically classify work request contents based on functional handling type, not merely by generic metadata like date or sender; 2. group work request contents sharing the same classification into groups; 3. render UI cards representing these groups, with visible indications of the classification and counts of underlying work request contents; and 4. perform batch operations when the interactive element (e.g., a button) on a card is activated, such as collectively transmitting handling results for all grouped work requests of the first function for a given group. This arrangement provides a concrete, technological improvement in how the computing system itself handles enterprise work requests: reducing redundant UI interactions, reducing repeated calls to backend systems, and enabling structured, function-driven batch operations directly from the graphical user interface…The claims recite a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information, namely, as function-based grouped UI cards with batch action controls, that improves the efficiency with which the device processes and executes work requests…Accordingly, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims are directed to a specific improvement in computer-implemented task processing...” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/18/2025, pages 12-13]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument, it is first noted that Step 2A, Prong One evaluates whether the claim recites and abstract idea and is not concerned with any claimed improvements or efficiencies. Claim 1 recites steps related to displaying a work request content list, receiving a selection of two or more work request contents, Extracting classification criteria, grouping the selected work request contents into a plurality of groups, generating and rendering a user interface card for each group, and collectively transmitting handling results in response to selection of an interactive element. These steps recite processes of organizing human activity and mental processes, including identifying, classifying, presenting, and transmitting handling results for work request, and therefore recite an abstract idea. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
9. Applicant submits “Further, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Even if one were to characterize certain aspects of the claims as involving "organizing human activity," the claims are not merely reciting rules; they integrate any such idea into a practical application via specific, non-generic computer operations. The claimed grouping by classification criteria corresponding to function types requires the system to analyze function metadata associated with work request contents and derive groups based on those function types. Further, the UI cards are not generic displays, rather, each card structurally corresponds to a particular function-type group and includes actionable controls that directly trigger batch execution of backend functions for the corresponding group. Finally, the batch execution is triggered by interacting with these specific UI elements, causing the system to collectively transmit handling results or navigate to appropriate edit/search contexts in a coordinated manner. These are not mere "apply it on a computer" instructions; they are concrete, technological mechanisms for transforming the way the system processes multiple work requests. Under Step 2A, Prong Two, these additional elements and their ordered combination apply any alleged abstract idea in a meaningful way that improves computer-implemented work request processing. They therefore integrate the idea into a practical application and render the claims patent-eligible.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/18/2025, page 13]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements in exemplary claim 1 are: one or more processors, a memory storing instructions, wherein execution of the instructions configures the one or more processors, a user interface, and an interactive element included in a user interface card, which merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer-based operating environment) via generic computing hardware, software/instructions, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05. Applicant has provided no facts/evidence, cited any portion of the Specification, nor provided a persuasive line of reasoning showing how the additional elements are integrated with the abstract idea to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Furthermore, it is noted that the claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no processors, memory, user interface, interactive element , or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner. Instead, the result produced by the claims is simply information relating to results for two or more of the work request contents, which is not a technical result or improvement thereof.
Moreover, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they 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.
Lastly, in response to Applicant’s argument that “these are not mere "apply it on a computer" instructions; they are concrete, technological mechanisms for transforming the way the system processes multiple work requests,” it is note that the claim limitations are considered apply it on a computer because they recite limitations related to organizing classifying, presenting, and transmitting information and merely instruct a generic computer to perform these steps. The processors, memory, and user interface card are standard components that do not improve computer functionality, but simply excite the abstract organizational process. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
10. Applicant submits “that the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Under Step 2B, considering the elements individually and as an ordered combination, the claims recite significantly more than a bare abstract idea.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/18/2025, page 13]
Applicant alludes to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry by suggesting that the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims merely product a result in the form of “results for two or more of the work request contents belonging to the group by executing the first function for the two or more work request contents,” which is not an improvement to the one or more processors, memory, or a user interface. These elements have been considered individually and in combination, or any other system or technology. The claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the one or more processors, memory, user interface, or any technology in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is no indication that any of the additional elements or the combination of elements amount to an improvement to the computer or to any technology. Their individual and collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, these additional claim elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
11. Applicant submits “The system performs batch execution of functions for grouped work requests based on these classifications, a coordinated process that differs from simply processing individual tasks one-by-one or aggregating them by generic attributes. Further, the UI elements (cards and group elements) are structurally configured to correspond to these groups and to provide actionable controls for batch execution. The Office does not identify any evidence that such function-based classification combined with Ul-driven batch execution, as specifically claimed, was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. The additional elements are not generic "processors and memories" alone; they are processors and memories specifically configured to perform the above- described operations, as detailed in the specification.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/18/2025, pages 13-14]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Referring to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, Applicant argues that “the Office does not identify any evidence that such function-based classification combined with Ul-driven batch execution, as specifically claimed, was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.” In response, the Examiner emphasizes that the limitation of “group the selected two or more work request contents into a plurality of groups based on the extracted classification criteria such that each group includes work request contents having a same extracted classification criteria” can be accomplished mentally and is also directly tied to the human user interaction data received in the preceding step, and therefore falls within the scope of the abstract idea itself, as discussed in the §101 rejection. Therefore, Applicant’s suggestion that evidence showing that the “correlating” step is well-understood, routine, and conventional is misplaced because this limitation is part of the abstract idea itself and need not be re-addressed under Step 2B.
12. Applicant submits “that the cited references fail to teach or suggest every element of the independent claims either alone or in combination.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/18/2025, page 14]
In response to Applicant's argument “that the cited references fail to teach or suggest every element of the independent claims either alone or in combination,” it is noted that this argument is a mere allegation of patentability by the Applicant with no supporting rationale or explanation. Merely stating that the claims do not teach a feature does not offer any insight as to why the specific sections of the prior art relied upon by the Examiner fail to disclose the claimed features. Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
13. Applicant submits “Wahl does not disclose UI cards whose interactive elements trigger batch processing per function-based groups.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/18/2025, page 15]
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., UI cards whose interactive elements trigger batch processing per function-based groups) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
14. Applicant submits “The Office relies on Blatz's discussion of "task types" and sequences. However, as Applicant previously explained, Blatz's "task type" simply categorizes tasks for association with a sequence; it does not teach grouping tasks according to a classification criteria corresponding to types of functions applied to the underlying work requests, nor does it link the grouping to function-driven batch execution as claimed.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/18/2025, page 15]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the §103 rejection of independent claim 1, Applicants argue that “Blatz's "task type" simply categorizes tasks for association with a sequence; it does not teach grouping tasks according to a classification criteria corresponding to types of functions applied to the underlying work requests, nor does it link the grouping to function-driven batch execution as claimed.” In response, it is first noted that Blatz was asserted as disclosing the amended limitation “group the selected two or more work request contents into a plurality of groups based on the extracted classification criteria such that each group includes work request contents having a same extracted classification criteria.” In particular, Blatz teaches grouping multiple selected work request content based on classification criteria. Paragraphs 0369-0370 disclose prompting the user to confirm associations for automatically identified tasks, receiving selections of two or more tasks, and associating tasks of the same type with task sequence. This teaches and at least suggest grouping selected work request contents into groups where each group includes contents having the same classification criteria, as recited in the amened claims. Thus, given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification in construing the claimed invention, it is Examiner’s position that the disclosure of Blatz teaches the disputed limitation. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
15. Applicant submits “Hicks does not teach grouping items based on classification criteria corresponding to function types for processing underlying work requests nor does it teach UI cards that invoke batch execution of different enterprise functions (e.g., collective transmission of handling results vs. edit VS. search) for enterprise work requests.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/18/2025, page 15]
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Hicks does not teach grouping items based on classification criteria corresponding to function types for processing underlying work requests nor does it teach UI cards that invoke batch execution of different enterprise functions (e.g., collective transmission of handling results vs. edit VS. search) for enterprise work requests,” it is noted that Hicks is asserted as disclosing the amended limitation “generate and render, on a user interface, for each of the plurality of groups, a corresponding user interface card that displays the classification criteria for the respective group and the work request contents included in the respective group.” Hicks was not asserted as disclosing the disputed limitations. Accordingly, this arguments is deemed moot.
16. Applicant submits “Ogata does not disclose the claimed link between function-type-based classification and Ul-driven batch execution of work request contents as in the independent claims.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/18/2025, page 15]
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., link between function-type-based classification and Ul-driven batch execution of work request contents) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
17. Applicant submits “Neither Wahl nor Blatz, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests: deriving classification criteria that correspond to different function types applied to work requests as disclosed (first/second/third functions); grouping work request contents based on those function- type criteria; and rendering UI cards that each correspond to such a group and include an interactive element configured to initiate batch processing of all work request contents within that group.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/18/2025, page 16]
In response to Applicant's argument “Neither Wahl nor Blatz, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests: deriving classification criteria that correspond to different function types applied to work requests as disclosed (first/second/third functions); grouping work request contents based on those function- type criteria; and rendering UI cards that each correspond to such a group and include an interactive element configured to initiate batch processing of all work request contents within that group,” it is noted that this argument is a mere allegation of patentability by the Applicant with no supporting rationale or explanation. Merely stating that the claims do not teach a feature does not offer any insight as to why the specific sections of the prior art relied upon by the Examiner fail to disclose the claimed features. Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Moreover, in response to Applicant’s argument that “neither Wahl nor Blatz, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests: deriving classification criteria that correspond to different function types applied to work requests as disclosed (first/second/third functions),” it is noted that exemplary claim 1 recites that “the type of function including one or more of: a first function for transmitting a handling result for work request contents, a second function for moving to a page to enter information or to correct previously entered information, and a third function for a detailed search with respect to work request contents.”
18. Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
19. 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.
20. Claims 6, 8-14, and 18 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.
21. Claim 6 was amended to recite “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to display, within each user interface card, the classification criteria and the count of work request contents included in the corresponding group.” There is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation “each user interface card” in the claim, which renders this claim indefinite. While claim 1 recites “a corresponding user interface cards” (singular), claims 1/6 do not introduce a plurality of user interface cards. Appropriate correction is required.
22. Claim 8 was amended to recite “in response to selection of the selectable element included in a user interface card corresponding to a group whose classification criteria indicates the first function…” There is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation “the selectable element” in the claim, which renders this claim indefinite. While claim 8 recites “at least one selectable element,” claim 8 does not introduce “a selectable element.” Appropriate correction is required.
23. Claim 11 was amended to recite “wherein rendering the interactive user interface cards includes displaying the classification criteria and the count of work request contents for each group.” There is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation “the count of work request contents” in the claim, which renders this claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
24. Claim 18 was amended to recite “wherein generating the user interface group elements comprises displaying, within each group element, the classification criteria for the respective group and the count of the work requests in the group.” There is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation “the count of work requests” in the claim, which renders this claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
25. Claims 9-14 depend from claim 8 and therefore inherit the §112(b) deficiencies of claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
26. 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.
27. Claims 1-2 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is 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 apparatus (claims 1-2, 5-7) and methods (claims 8-20) is directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine and process, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-2 and 5-20 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 because the claims recite steps for managing work requests, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions), 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: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions, wherein execution of the instructions configures the one or more processors to: display a work request content list, wherein the work request content list includes a plurality of work request contents, each work request content associated with at least one function for requesting handling by a user; receive a user selection of two or more work request contents from among a plurality of work request contents enumerated in the displayed work request content list; extract, from each of the selected two or more work request contents, classification criteria including a type of function associated with the respective work request content, the type of function including one or more of: a first function for transmitting a handling result for work request contents, a second function for moving to a page to enter information or to correct previously entered information, and a third function for a detailed search with respect to work request contents; group the selected two or more work request contents into a plurality of groups based on the extracted classification criteria such that each group includes work request contents having a same extracted classification criteria; generate and render, on a user interface, for each of the plurality of groups, a corresponding user interface card that displays the classification criteria for the respective group and the work request contents included in the respective group; and in response to selection of an interactive element included in a user interface card corresponding to a group whose classification criteria indicates the first function, collectively transmit handling results for two or more of the work request contents belonging to the group by executing the first function for the two or more work request contents. These steps are organizing human activity because the claim recites steps for managing work requests by receiving user selections, classifying and grouping work request contents based on criteria, and presenting those groupings, and may also be accomplished mentally such as via human observation and perhaps 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 grouping 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. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations as those discussed above and are therefore found to recite the same or substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. With respect to independent claims 1/8/15, the additional elements are: one or more processors, a memory storing instructions, wherein execution of the instructions configures the one or more processors, a user interface, and an interactive element included in a user interface card (claim 1); a user interface, interactive user interface cards, each interactive user interface card, at least one selectable element, and a user interface card (claim 8); a user interface group element displayed on a user interface, each user interface group element, and an actionable control (claim 15). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the steps for display and transmit 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 independent claims 1/8/15, the additional elements are: one or more processors, a memory storing instructions, wherein execution of the instructions configures the one or more processors, a user interface, and an interactive element included in a user interface card (claim 1); a user interface, interactive user interface cards, each interactive user interface card, at least one selectable element, and a user interface card (claim 8); a user interface group element displayed on a user interface, each user interface group element, and an actionable control (claim 15). 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), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification suggests that virtually any type of computing device under the sun can be used to implement the claimed invention (Specification at paragraph [0100]). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.). Next, the steps for display and transmit are considered insignificant extra-solution activity (transmitting data), 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).
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, 5-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above. In particular, dependent claims 2 and 5-7 recite “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify, for each group, a count of the work request contents included in the respective group,” “wherein each function associated with the work request contents is implemented in a form,” “display the classification criteria and the count of work request contents included in the corresponding group,” “navigate to a detailed search screen listing the work request contents of that group,” however these limitations cover activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions), which is part of the same abstract idea as addressed in the independent claims that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping and also recite steps that may also be accomplished mentally such as via human observation and perhaps with the aid of pen and paper. The other dependent claims have been evaluated as well, but similar to claims 2 and 5-7, these claims also recite details of the abstract ideas themselves accompanied by, at most, generic computer implementation, which is not enough to transform the claims into a practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f),(h). See also, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976. Dependent claims 5, 6, 7, 12, and 14 recite additional elements of: a button displayed on the user interface, each user interface card, the user interface card corresponding to a group associated with the third function. However, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, these additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible.
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
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. Claims 1-2, 6-11, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahl et al., Pub. No.: US 2020/0311680 A1, [hereinafter Wahl], in view of Blatz et al., Pub. No.: US 2020/0379727 A1, [hereinafter Blatz], in view of Hicks et al., Pub. No.: US 2014/0331187 A1, [hereinafter Hicks], in further view of Vairamohan, Pub. No.: US 2017/0364213 A1, [hereinafter Vairamohan].
As per claim 1, Wahl teaches an apparatus for grouping work request contents selected from a work request content list, the apparatus (paragraphs 0005, 0148) comprising:
one or more processors (paragraph 0005: “or more processors collectively configured”); and
a memory storing instructions, wherein execution of the instructions configures the one or more processors (paragraph 0005: “one or more memory storage areas”; paragraph 0138: “the memory may be an electronic storage device (e.g., a computer-readable storage medium). The memory may be configured to store information, data, content, applications, instructions, or the like for enabling the apparatus to carry out various functions”) to:
display a work request content list, wherein the work request content list includes a plurality of work request contents, each work request content associated with at least one function for requesting handling by a user (paragraph 0332, discussing that task lists [i.e., work request content list] may be embodied as personal work objects to a particular user. These work objects are not shared with users beyond the user associated with the task or task list. However, such work objects may be indexed by the group-based communication platform such that characterizations of other, public or non-personal work objects and/or determined relationships and similarities with the personal work objects may be utilized to characterize the personal work objects…Such characterizations may facilitate search queries and retrieval of these personal work objects by the associated user. For example, personal work objects embodied as tasks or task lists may be added to work graph data structures for establishing links with other (potentially non-personal work objects)...; paragraph 0339, discussing that the operation servers receive the generated task list and prepare the task list for storage and/or distribution for access by the appropriate users; paragraph 0348, discussing that the task or task list may be disseminated to one or more client devices. Tasks or task lists delegated to particular users may be disseminated to client devices associated with the delegated users…);
receive a user selection of two or more work request contents from among a plurality of work request contents enumerated in the displayed work request content list (paragraph 0343, discussing that the operation servers may generate an expanded cache object having additional detail of the task or task list to be associated with the task or task list and the summary cache object. The summary cache object may then be configured to be interactive for the receiving client devices, such that clicking/selecting the summary cache object may cause the client device to request the expanded cache object from the group-based communication platform. Likewise, the expanded cache object may be similarly interactive, and clicking/selecting the expanded cache object may cause the client device to request the full task or task list from the group-based communication platform; paragraph 0370, discussing that the process may begin by selecting a work object for analysis...The work object's relationship to other work objects may then be determined. In certain embodiments, the group-based communication platform may identify shared topics within metadata of the work object and other work objects; identify common sending user identifiers; identify common participants; identify common work object types; identify common intended recipients; identify temporal relationships between generation/transmission of work objects; and/or the like); and
a classification criteria (paragraph 0340, discussing that the operation servers determine various characteristics of the task list by parsing the task list metadata...While parsing the task list, the operation servers identifies content of the task list, and may identify one or more other characteristics of the task or task list that may be integrated with various configurations of the group-based communication platform. Moreover, in the event that the task or task list was generated by a client device interacting with a validated external resource, the operation servers identifies a generator of the task/task list based on a validated external identifier…; paragraph 0341, discussing that the group-based communication platform may determine whether any other characteristics exist that are unique to the task or task list. For example, particular task-based validated external resources may provide specific metadata contents in tasks that may be utilized by the group-based communication platform in establishing supplemental metadata for the task or task list; paragraph 0371, discussing that the group-based communication platform may establish weighted relationship scores between each of the other work objects identified. For example, stronger relationships (e.g., a higher number of shared characteristics), or certain types of relationships may result in a higher relationship score between the analyzed work object and one or more other work objects. These relationship scores may be ranked. In certain embodiments, those relationship scores satisfying a first degree score criteria may be utilized to establish direct relationships between the analyzed work object and those other work objects having a sufficient relationship score; paragraphs 0344, 0345);
extract, from each of the selected two or more work request contents, classification criteria including a type of function associated with the respective work request content (paragraph 0005, discussing extracting the body content data from the one or more work objects; paragraph 0041, discussing that the work graph establishes relationships among a plurality of work objects of different work object types; paragraph 0088, discussing that the term “work object contextual data” refers to data that is extracted or derived from a work object that may affect how the work object is determined to relate to other work objects…Work object contextual data comprises metadata, such as title/subject information, date and time information, work object owner/creator information, work object type information, work object detail information that comprises text, images, audio, and file attachments, objects attached to the event and/or one or more predefined work object data fields. The work object contextual data may further include a validated external resource identifier, a user identifier, one or more group-based communication channel identifiers associated with group-based communication channels that the user has been granted access to, one or more group identifiers for groups with which the user is associated, message identifier, event identifier, or external work object identifier. The group-based communication system may be configured to further facilitate indexing the work object contextual data; paragraph 0205, discussing that the type of work object received is utilized to determine how to parse the received work object, as different parsing methods are utilized to extract relevant data within different work object types; paragraph 0206, discussing that while parsing the email, the group-based communication platform retrieves the substantive content of the email, which may be utilized for searching and/or classification of the email. Moreover, the group-based communication platform parses various portions of the metadata included with the email to identify relevant characteristics of the email usable for indexing the email; paragraph 0386, discussing that the search query functionality may enable the user to quickly select a particular work object from within a search results listing. In various embodiments, the search results listing may comprise a listing of cache objects relating to the work objects identified for inclusion within the search. These summary cache objects may be passed to the client device that initiated the search for display within the search query results display; paragraphs 0222, 0318),
the type of function including one or more of: a first function for transmitting a handling result for work request contents, a second function for moving to a page to enter information or to correct previously entered information, and a third function for a detailed search with respect to work request contents (paragraph 0308, discussing that context data of events may contain data indicative of the status of the underlying event (e.g., a reminder may be cleared upon completion of the underlying task/event)…By marking an event as complete, the underlying context data of the event may be updated within various calendars of the intended recipients/participants of the event; paragraph 0331, discussing that a task may include data such as a task identifier, a user identifier associated with the task (e.g., a user generating the task), a delegate identifier (e.g., another user identifier associated with a user to whom the task is delegated), a task description, a task location, a task start date (and/or time), a task due date (and/or time), one or more task reminder dates and/or times, a completion status of the task, and/or the like. Task lists may comprise one or more tasks (each task comprising data as noted above); paragraph 0337, discussing that tasks and task lists are generated in response to user input received at the generating client device, and are indicative of the content that the user intended to be reflected in a task by way of the generated task or task list. For example, a user may maintain a task list for all tasks relating to starting a new business (and in such a case, the task list may be characterized by a task list identifier of “New Business Tasks”). The user's New Business Tasks, task list may include a number of individual tasks, each having their own task identifier, completion status, description, and other data as discussed above. For example, one task may have a task identifier of “apply for new business license,” with a start date of January 1, a due date of June 1, a description of “file paperwork with secretary of state,” and a completion status of “Not Started.” The task may also include data indicative of a delegate of the user's assistant (identified based on the assistant's user identifier). Moreover, the task may also include an attachment, such as a document including the blank paperwork that must be completed and submitted to the secretary of state; paragraph 0386, discussing that the search query functionality may enable the user to quickly select a particular work object from within a search results listing. In various embodiments, the search results listing may comprise a listing of cache objects (e.g., summary cache objects) relating to the work objects identified for inclusion within the search. These summary cache objects may be passed to the client device 101A-101N that initiated the search for display within the search query results display; paragraph 0381); and
collectively transmit handling results for two or more of the work request contents belonging to the group by executing the first function for the two or more work request contents (paragraph 0187, discussing that work object context data, such as metadata and/or the contents of the message may be used to index the message, to facilitate various facets of searching (i.e., search queries that return results from the operation servers 107A-107N), and/or to otherwise establish one or more relationships with other work objects (e.g., other messages or other work objects; paragraph 0226, discussing that backfilled events may comprise future events (or current events) that were not previously provided to the group-based communication platform 105, and/or past events (e.g., those with date and/or timestamp data occurring prior to the current time and/or those with an event completion indicator indicating the event has been completed). In certain embodiments, these backfilled events may be retrieved in response to a request provided by the group-based communication platform for backfilled events that is provided to the client device and/or a validated external resource; paragraph 0308, discussing periodically updating the status of various events, and marking various events as complete; paragraph 0331, discussing that tasks or task lists may be transmitted to the group-based communication platform via an intermediary. In one implementation, a task may include data such as a task identifier, a user identifier associated with the task (e.g., a user generating the task), a delegate identifier (e.g., another user identifier associated with a user to whom the task is delegated), a task description, a task location, a task start date (and/or time), a task due date (and/or time), one or more task reminder dates and/or times, a completion status of the task, and/or the; paragraphs 0382, 0385).
Wahl does not explicitly teach group the selected two or more work request contents into a plurality of groups based on the extracted classification criteria such that each group includes work request contents having a same extracted classification criteria; generate and render, on a user interface, for each of the plurality of groups, a corresponding user interface card that displays the classification criteria for the respective group and the work request contents included in the respective group; and in response to selection of an interactive element included in a user interface card corresponding to a group whose classification criteria indicates the first function, collectively transmit handling results for two or more of the work request contents belonging to the group by executing the first function for the two or more work request contents. Blatz in the analogous art of task management systems teaches:
group the selected two or more work request contents into a plurality of groups based on the extracted classification criteria such that each group includes work request contents having a same extracted classification criteria (paragraph 0369, discussing that the electronic device prompts the user to confirm whether to associate any automatically associated tasks with the task sequence...In some examples, the electronic device receives a user input confirming the association of automatically associated tasks and the electronic device associates these tasks with the task sequence; paragraph 0370, discussing that in some examples, each of the sets of candidate tasks are associated with the same task type and thus the tasks associated with the task sequence may be of the same type. Further, in some examples, the set of user inputs corresponds to a selection of more than two candidate tasks and the selected candidate tasks are associated with the task sequence for the user activity).
Wahl is directed towards work management systems. Blatz is directed towards task management systems. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards work management systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wahl with Blatz because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for work management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for grouping work requests), and because modifying Wahl to include Blatz’s feature for grouping the selected two or more work request contents into a plurality of groups based on the extracted classification criteria such that each group includes work request contents having a same extracted classification criteria, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of increasing the efficiency of executing tasks (Blatz at paragraph 0013), or in the pursuit of enhancing the user experience by eliminating unnecessary work to find their tasks; 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.
The Wahl-Blatz combination does not explicitly teach generate and render, on a user interface, for each of the plurality of groups, a corresponding user interface card that displays the classification criteria for the respective group and the work request contents included in the respective group; and in response to selection of an interactive element included in a user interface card corresponding to a group whose classification criteria indicates the first function, collectively transmit handling results for two or more of the work request contents belonging to the group by executing the first function for the two or more work request contents. Hicks in the analogous art of user interface techniques for grouping multiple objects teaches:
generate and render, on a user interface, for each of the plurality of groups, a corresponding user interface card that displays the classification criteria for the respective group and the work request contents included in the respective group (paragraph 0030, discussing that once the group mode is enabled, the user can choose the Input Used to Group Objects…In still other embodiments, the Input Used to Group Objects may also include other input such as a press-and-hold gesture, a tap gesture on a group button, or a right click menu option, for example. In this manner, the input used to group objects may vary depending on the group mode's configuration, and may include touch sensitive user input or non-touch sensitive user input. The Configure virtual button may allow for additional configuration of the Input Used to Group Objects settings option. For example, after selecting this corresponding Configure virtual button, the user may be able to configure where the bundle will be located after the objects are grouped. Numerous different user input characteristics may affect whether the group mode grouping function is invoked; paragraph 0049, discussing that after the appropriate group mode user input is made to group the preselected objects, the preselected objects can be grouped into a bundle as illustrated in the example screen shot shown in FIG. 3b'. In this specific example, the preselected objects were grouped into a bundle in the position of object A...In some instances, after the group function is performed and the preselected objects are placed into a bundle, the unselected objects may move to fill in the objects that were grouped into a bundle; paragraph 0051, discussing that FIGS. 3c-c''' illustrate an example group mode configuration where holding user input used to group objects performs an action...In this example, the user input is a swipe gesture, which is held to perform an action…After the swipe and hold gesture is performed, a hold action may be invoked, such as displaying the pop-up menu of options as shown in FIG. 3c'. The group mode swipe and hold gesture may cause some other action (such as invoking a particular interaction), which may be user-configurable or hard-coded. Continuing with FIG. 3c'', since the swipe and hold gesture action in this example causes a pop-up menu of options to be displayed, the user can then select one of the pop-up menu options...In this specific example, the user chose the Group into Bundle option, which caused the preselected objects to be grouped into a bundle as shown in FIG. 3c'''; paragraph 0052, discussing that an interaction confirmation pop-up box was also displayed in this example embodiment to provide an additional step before performing the interaction, ensuring the user desired to perform the invoked interaction. In other embodiments, the interaction may be automatically performed after group plus interaction user input is provided. FIG. 3d'' shows the user selecting the Yes option in the confirmation box to perform the interaction (i.e., to share the bundle). The result of the Yes selection is shown in FIG. 3d''', where the bundle is shared to allow other users to access the bundle; paragraph 0060, discussing displaying a pop-up menu of group plus interaction options. The swipe and hold gesture may be used to invoke a different action (other than displaying a pop-up menu), such as causing a specific group plus interaction, for example. The options may include various functions, such as group and move the selected objects, group and send the selected objects, group and share the selected objects, or group and delete the selected objects.
The Wahl-Blatz combination describes features related to work management systems. Hicks is directed towards user interface techniques for grouping multiple objects on a computing device. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards task management systems. 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 Wahl-Blatz combination with Hicks because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for grouping objects, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for grouping work requests), and because modifying the Wahl-Blatz combination to include Hicks’ feature for including generating and rendering, on a user interface, for each of the plurality of groups, a corresponding user interface card that displays the classification criteria for the respective group and the work request contents included in the respective group, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of enhancing the user experience when interacting with two or more objects (Hicks at paragraph 0020); 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.
The Wahl-Blatz-Hicks combination does not explicitly teach in response to selection of an interactive element included in a user interface card corresponding to a group whose classification criteria indicates the first function, collectively transmit handling results for two or more of the work request contents belonging to the group by executing the first function for the two or more work request contents. However, Vairamohan in the analogous art of bulk processing systems teaches this concept. Vairamohan teaches:
in response to selection of an interactive element included in a user interface card corresponding to a group whose classification criteria indicates the first function, collectively transmit handling results for two or more of the work request contents belonging to the group by executing the first function for the two or more work request contents (abstract, discussing approaches for generating a user interface in which data items are grouped together; paragraph 0003, discussing that users can individually select email messages and perform an action on the selected email messages; paragraph 0015, discussing that the user might able to perform a bulk archival or deletion of multiple email messages; paragraph 0028, discussing that various compliance rules can be enforced by the management service by the client device. Compliance rules can be based on time, geographical location, or device and network properties. For instance, the client device can satisfy a compliance rule when the client device is located within a particular geographic location. The client device can satisfy a compliance rule in other examples when the client device is in communication with a particular local area network, such as a particular local area network that is managed by the enterprise computing environment. Furthermore, a compliance rule in another example can be based upon the time and date matching specified values; paragraph 0045, discussing that the client application can represent an email client, a calendar application, a contacts application, a document or file synchronization application, or any other application that can render content in a user interface that can be grouped according to a grouping factor. The client application can allow a user to invoke a group user interface that groups content together according to the grouping factor. A grouping factor can include one or more time periods, a location of a user, a location of a sender, or a user group of a user or sender. For example, if the group user interface groups items by day and a particular email message was sent on a particular day, when a user invokes the group user interface, the client application displays the email grouped together with other emails that were sent on the same day. A grouping factor can also include a tag or a folder assigned to a particular data item. In one scenario, an email client can automatically tag or assign folders to an incoming email based upon rules that are set up by a user; paragraph 0049, discussing that the client application can allow a user to select a grouping factor in a configuration option or might be preconfigured with a particular grouping factor. For illustrative purposes, the grouping factor shown in the following user interface examples is a time period. In other words, the emails represented in the user interface examples are grouped according to a timestamp of when they were sent by a sender of the email. However, other grouping factors can be selected with which to group emails together in a group user interface; paragraphs 0030, 0033).
The Wahl-Blatz-Hicks combination describes features related to data management systems. Vairamohan is directed towards a system for bulk processing. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards data management systems. 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 Wahl-Blatz-Hicks combination with Vairamohan because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for data management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for grouping work requests), and because modifying the Wahl-Blatz-Hicks combination to include Vairamohan’s feature for including in response to selection of an interactive element included in a user interface card corresponding to a group whose classification criteria indicates the first function, collectively transmit handling results for two or more of the work request contents belonging to the group by executing the first function for the two or more work request contents, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of facilitating bulk actions on groupings of items (Vairamohan at paragraph 0014); 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 2, the Wahl-Blatz-Hicks-Vairamohan combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by Wahl, Vairamohan in the analogous art of bulk processing systems teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify, for each group, a count of the work request contents included in the respective group (paragraph 0051, discussing that the groupings shown in the group user interface can also include an indicator that indicates a number of data items that are grouped together).
The Wahl-Blatz-Hicks combination describes features related to data management systems. Vairamohan is directed towards a system for bulk processing. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards data management systems. 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 Wahl-Blatz-Hicks combination with Vairamohan because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for data management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for grouping work requests), and because modifying the Wahl-Blatz-Hicks combination to include Vairamohan’s feature for including wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify, for each group, a count of the work request contents included in the respective group, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of facilitating bulk actions on groupings of items (Vairamohan at paragraph 0014); 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 6, the Wahl-Blatz-Hicks-Vairamohan combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by Wahl, Blatz in the analogous art of task management systems teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to display, within each user interface card, the classification criteria (paragraph 0360, discussing that an output indicating the first set of candidate tasks and the second candidate tasks is provided. In some examples, the output indicating the first set of candidate tasks and the second candidate tasks is provided on a display of the user device. In some examples, the first set of candidate tasks and the second candidate tasks are provided in the same user interface of the display of the user device; paragraph 0369, discussing that the electronic device prompts the user to confirm whether to associate any automatically associated tasks with the task sequence...In some examples, the electronic device receives a user input confirming the association of automatically associated tasks and the electronic device associates these tasks with the task sequence; paragraph 0370, discussing that in some examples, each of the sets of candidate tasks are associated with the same task type and thus the tasks associated with the task sequence may be of the same type. Further, in some examples, the set of user inputs corresponds to a selection of more than two candidate tasks and the selected candidate tasks are associated with the task sequence for the user activity).
Wahl is directed towards work management systems. Blatz is directed towards task management systems. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards work management systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wahl with Blatz because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for work management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for grouping work requests), and because modifying Wahl to include Blatz’s feature for wherein the one or more processors are further configured to display, within each user interface card, the classification criteria, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of increasing the efficiency of executing tasks (Blatz at paragraph 0013), or in the pursuit of enhancing the user experience by eliminating unnecessary work to find their tasks; 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.
Although not explicitly taught by the Wahl-Blatz combination, Vairamohan in the analogous art of bulk processing systems teaches display, within each user interface card, the count of work request contents included in the corresponding group (paragraph 0051, discussing that the groupings shown in the group user interface can also include an indicator that indicates a number of data items that are grouped together).
The Wahl-Blatz-Hicks combination describes features related to data management systems. Vairamohan is directed towards a system for bulk processing. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards data management systems. 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 Wahl-Blatz-Hicks combination with Vairamohan because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for data management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for grouping work requests), and because modifying the Wahl-Blatz-Hicks combination to include Vairamohan’s feature for including display, within each user interface card, the count of work request contents included in the corresponding group, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of facilitating bulk actions on groupings of items (Vairamohan at paragraph 0014); 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 7, the Wahl-Blatz-Hicks-Vairamohan combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Wahl further teaches wherein the user interface card corresponding to a group associated with the third function is configured to navigate to a detailed search screen listing the work request contents of that group (paragraph 0308, discussing that context data of events may contain data indicative of the status of the underlying event (e.g., a reminder may be cleared upon completion of the underlying task/event)…By marking an event as complete, the underlying context data of the event may be updated within various calendars of the intended recipients/participants of the event; paragraph 0331, discussing that a task may include data such as a task identifier, a user identifier associated with the task (e.g., a user generating the task), a delegate identifier (e.g., another user identifier associated with a user to whom the task is delegated), a task description, a task location, a task start date (and/or time), a task due date (and/or time), one or more task reminder dates and/or times, a completion status of the task, and/or the like. Task lists may comprise one or more tasks (each task comprising data as noted above); paragraph 0337, discussing that tasks and task lists are generated in response to user input received at the generating client device, and are indicative of the content that the user intended to be reflected in a task by way of the generated task or task list. For example, a user may maintain a task list for all tasks relating to starting a new business (and in such a case, the task list may be characterized by a task list identifier of “New Business Tasks”). The user's New Business Tasks, task list may include a number of individual tasks, each having their own task identifier, completion status, description, and other data as discussed above. For example, one task may have a task identifier of “apply for new business license,” with a start date of January 1, a due date of June 1, a description of “file paperwork with secretary of state,” and a completion status of “Not Started.” The task may also include data indicative of a delegate of the user's assistant (identified based on the assistant's user identifier). Moreover, the task may also include an attachment, such as a document including the blank paperwork that must be completed and submitted to the secretary of state; paragraph 0386, discussing that the search query functionality may enable the user to quickly select a particular work object from within a search results listing. In various embodiments, the search results listing may comprise a listing of cache objects (e.g., summary cache objects) relating to the work objects identified for inclusion within the search. These summary cache objects may be passed to the client device 101A-101N that initiated the search for display within the search query results display; paragraphs 0279, 0350, 0381).
Claim 8 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 1, as discussed above. Further, as per claim 8, the Wahl-Blatz-Hicks-Vairamohan combination teaches a method for grouping work request contents selected from a work request content list (paragraph 0011, 0058).
Claims 9 and 17 recite substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 2, as discussed above.
Claims 10 and 19 recite substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 7, as discussed above.
Claims 11 and 18 recite substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 6, as discussed above.
As per claim 14, Wahl-Blatz-Hicks-Vairamohan teaches the method of claim 8. While Wahl teaches collectively transmitting handling results for all work request contents in the group (paragraph 0187, discussing that work object context data, such as metadata and/or the contents of the message may be used to index the message, to facilitate various facets of searching (i.e., search queries that return results from the operation servers 107A-107N), and/or to otherwise establish one or more relationships with other work objects (e.g., other messages or other work objects; paragraph 0226, discussing that backfilled events may comprise future events (or current events) that were not previously provided to the group-based communication platform 105, and/or past events (e.g., those with date and/or timestamp data occurring prior to the current time and/or those with an event completion indicator indicating the event has been completed). In certain embodiments, these backfilled events may be retrieved in response to a request provided by the group-based communication platform for backfilled events that is provided to the client device and/or a validated external resource; paragraph 0308, discussing periodically updating the status of various events, and marking various events as complete; paragraph 0331, discussing that tasks or task lists may be transmitted to the group-based communication platform via an intermediary. In one implementation, a task may include data such as a task identifier, a user identifier associated with the task (e.g., a user generating the task), a delegate identifier (e.g., another user identifier associated with a user to whom the task is delegated), a task description, a task location, a task start date (and/or time), a task due date (and/or time), one or more task reminder dates and/or times, a completion status of the task, and/or the; paragraphs 0382, 0385), Wahl does not explicitly teach wherein selection of a user interface card associated with the first function further comprises collectively transmitting handling results for all work request contents in the group. However, Vairamohan in the analogous art of bulk processing systems teaches this concept. Vairamohan teaches:
wherein selection of a user interface card associated with the first function further comprises collectively transmitting handling results for all work request contents in the group (abstract, discussing approaches for generating a user interface in which data items are grouped together; paragraph 0003, discussing that users can individually select email messages and perform an action on the selected email messages; paragraph 0015, discussing that the user might able to perform a bulk archival or deletion of multiple email messages; paragraph 0028, discussing that various compliance rules can be enforced by the management service by the client device. Compliance rules can be based on time, geographical location, or device and network properties. For instance, the client device can satisfy a compliance rule when the client device is located within a particular geographic location. The client device can satisfy a compliance rule in other examples when the client device is in communication with a particular local area network, such as a particular local area network that is managed by the enterprise computing environment. Furthermore, a compliance rule in another example can be based upon the time and date matching specified values; paragraph 0045, discussing that the client application can represent an email client, a calendar application, a contacts application, a document or file synchronization application, or any other application that can render content in a user interface that can be grouped according to a grouping factor. The client application can allow a user to invoke a group user interface that groups content together according to the grouping factor. A grouping factor can include one or more time periods, a location of a user, a location of a sender, or a user group of a user or sender. For example, if the group user interface groups items by day and a particular email message was sent on a particular day, when a user invokes the group user interface, the client application displays the email grouped together with other emails that were sent on the same day. A grouping factor can also include a tag or a folder assigned to a particular data item. In one scenario, an email client can automatically tag or assign folders to an incoming email based upon rules that are set up by a user; paragraph 0049, discussing that the client application can allow a user to select a grouping factor in a configuration option or might be preconfigured with a particular grouping factor. For illustrative purposes, the grouping factor shown in the following user interface examples is a time period. In other words, the emails represented in the user interface examples are grouped according to a timestamp of when they were sent by a sender of the email. However, other grouping factors can be selected with which to group emails together in a group user interface; paragraphs 0030, 0033).
The Wahl-Blatz-Hicks combination describes features related to data management systems. Vairamohan is directed towards a system for bulk processing. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards data management systems. 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 Wahl-Blatz-Hicks combination with Vairamohan because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for data management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for grouping work requests), and because modifying the Wahl-Blatz-Hicks combination to include Vairamohan’s feature for including wherein selection of a user interface card associated with the first function further comprises collectively transmitting handling results for all work request contents in the group, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of facilitating bulk actions on groupings of items (Vairamohan at paragraph 0014); 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.
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 1, as discussed above. Further, as per claim 15, the Wahl-Blatz-Hicks-Vairamohan combination teaches a processor-implemented method (paragraph 0011, 0058, 0140).
As per claim 16, the Wahl-Blatz-Hicks-Vairamohan s combination teaches the method of claim 15. Wahl further teaches wherein the first functions include one or more of a receipt request function, an approval function, and a meeting-accepted function (paragraph 0101, discussing that channel settings may also indicate the number and/or identity of groups (or users) authorized to access the particular group-based communication channel; and, when applicable one or more group identifier values that indicate the group identifier(s) of one or more groups authorized to access the group-based communication channel. In some embodiments, if a user associated with a client device attempts to access a group-based communication channel and the user capacity has been reached, the client device may not be permitted to access the group-based communication channel. The channel settings may also include one or more authorized application identifiers that indicate to a group-based communication platform which applications are authorized to be downloaded and utilized in the group-based communication channel. In embodiments, if an application attempts to access a group-based communication channel and the application is not associated with an authorized application identifier, the application may not be granted access to the group-based communication channel; paragraph 0114, discussing that the contextual data comprises an event identifier that uniquely identifies a particular created event occurrence. The contextual data of an event occurrence of certain embodiments is embodied as an event occurrence data structure comprising a plurality of event occurrence parameters, including the event identifier. Each event occurrence parameter may be one of an event occurrence timestamp, an event occurrence location identifier, an event occurrence start time identifier, an event occurrence run time identifier, an event occurrence completion indicator, an event occurrence creator identifier, an event occurrence invite identifier, an event occurrence acceptance identifier, an event occurrence decline identifier, an event occurrence acceptance identifier, and event occurrence title...; paragraph 0118, discussing that the term “event occurrence timestamp” or “event timestamp” refers to a digital representation of network time associated with at least one of the receipt, commencement, conclusion or run time of an event occurrence; paragraph 0173, discussing that the expanded cache objects may be stored at the group-based communication platform, and may be retrieved and transmitted to a requesting client device only upon receipt of an indication that a user interacted with a related summary cache object at the client device; paragraphs 0121, 0301).
33. Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahl in view of Blatz, in view of Hicks, in view of Vairamohan, in further view of Matsuoka et al., Pub. No.: US 2023/0076327 A1, [hereinafter Matsuoka].
As per claim 5, the Wahl-Blatz-Hicks-Vairamohan combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1. While Wahl suggests a button (paragraph 0172, discussing that these expanded cache objects provide detailed content data from the underlying work object, however these expanded cache objects may omit formatting or other metadata of the underlying work objects. These expanded cache objects may be accessed by interacting (e.g., clicking) on a summary cache object displayed to a user via a client device; paragraph 0214, discussing that the operation servers may generate an expanded cache object having additional detail of the email (e.g., the entirety of the email content), certain formatting characteristics, attachments, and/or the like) to be associated with the email and the summary cache object. The summary cache object may then be configured to be interactive for the receiving client devices 101A-101N, such that clicking/selecting the summary cache object may cause the client device 101A-101N to request the expanded cache object from the group-based communication platform 105. Likewise, the expanded cache object may be similarly interactive, and clicking/selecting the expanded cache object may cause the client device 101A-101N to request the full email from the group-based communication platform 105; paragraph 0373).
Wahl does not explicitly teach wherein each function associated with the work request contents is implemented in a form of a button displayed on the user interface. However, Matsuoka in the analogous art of task management system teaches this concept. Matsuoka teaches:
wherein each function associated with the work request contents is implemented in a form of a button displayed on the user interface (paragraph 0082, discussing that the representative may review the set of tasks recommended by the task recommendation system and select one or more of these tasks for presentation to the member via task-specific interfaces corresponding to these tasks. Further, as described above, the representative may determine whether a task is to be presented with an option to defer to the representative for performance of the task (e.g., with a button or other GUI element to indicate the member's preference to defer to the representative for performance of the task). In some instances, the one or more tasks may be presented to the member according to the ranking generated by the task recommendation system. Alternatively, the one or more tasks may be presented according to the representative's understanding of the member's own preferences for task prioritization. Through an interface provided by the task facilitation service, the member 118 may access any of the task-specific interfaces related to these tasks to select one or more tasks that may be performed with the assistance of the representative. The member may alternatively dismiss any presented tasks that the member would rather perform personally or that the member does not otherwise want performed; paragraph 0088, discussing that the task recommendation system may provide a button or other GUI element that may be selectable by the member to request curation of the experience for the member; paragraph 0091, discussing that once a member has selected a particular proposal for a particular task or has selected a button or other GUI element associated with the particular task to indicate that it wishes to defer to the representative for performance of the task, if the task is to be completed using third-party services, the representative may coordinate with one or more third-party services for completion of the task for the benefit of the member; paragraph 0323).
The Wahl-Blatz-Hicks-Vairamohan combination describes features related to work management systems. Matsuoka is directed towards systems and methods for ingesting task data from a browser for task facilitation services. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards task management systems. 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 Wahl-Blatz-Hicks-Vairamohan combination with Matsuoka because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for work management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for grouping work requests), and because modifying the Wahl-Blatz-Hicks-Vairamohan combination to include Matsuoka’s feature for including wherein each function associated with the work request contents is implemented in a form of a button displayed on the user interface, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of facilitating task completion (Matsuoka at paragraph 0006); 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 12, the Wahl-Blatz-Hicks-Vairamohan combination teaches the method of claim 11. While Wahl suggests a button (paragraph 0172, discussing that these expanded cache objects provide detailed content data from the underlying work object, however these expanded cache objects may omit formatting or other metadata of the underlying work objects. These expanded cache objects may be accessed by interacting (e.g., clicking) on a summary cache object displayed to a user via a client device; paragraph 0214, discussing that the operation servers may generate an expanded cache object having additional detail of the email (e.g., the entirety of the email content), certain formatting characteristics, attachments, and/or the like) to be associated with the email and the summary cache object. The summary cache object may then be configured to be interactive for the receiving client devices 101A-101N, such that clicking/selecting the summary cache object may cause the client device 101A-101N to request the expanded cache object from the group-based communication platform 105. Likewise, the expanded cache object may be similarly interactive, and clicking/selecting the expanded cache object may cause the client device 101A-101N to request the full email from the group-based communication platform 105; paragraph 0373), Wahl does not explicitly teach wherein the first function, the second function, and the third function are implemented in a form of a button. However, Matsuoka in the analogous art of task management system teaches this concept. Matsuoka teaches:
wherein the first function, the second function, and the third function are implemented in a form of a button (paragraph 0082, discussing that the representative may review the set of tasks recommended by the task recommendation system and select one or more of these tasks for presentation to the member via task-specific interfaces corresponding to these tasks. Further, as described above, the representative may determine whether a task is to be presented with an option to defer to the representative for performance of the task (e.g., with a button or other GUI element to indicate the member's preference to defer to the representative for performance of the task). In some instances, the one or more tasks may be presented to the member according to the ranking generated by the task recommendation system. Alternatively, the one or more tasks may be presented according to the representative's understanding of the member's own preferences for task prioritization. Through an interface provided by the task facilitation service, the member may access any of the task-specific interfaces related to these tasks to select one or more tasks that may be performed with the assistance of the representative. The member may alternatively dismiss any presented tasks that the member would rather perform personally or that the member does not otherwise want performed; paragraph 0088, discussing that the task recommendation system may provide a button or other GUI element that may be selectable by the member to request curation of the experience for the member; paragraph 0091, discussing that once a member has selected a particular proposal for a particular task or has selected a button or other GUI element associated with the particular task to indicate that it wishes to defer to the representative for performance of the task, if the task is to be completed using third-party services, the representative may coordinate with one or more third-party services for completion of the task for the benefit of the member; paragraph 0323).
The Wahl-Blatz-Hicks-Vairamohan combination describes features related to work management systems. Matsuoka is directed towards systems and methods for ingesting task data from a browser for task facilitation services. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards task management systems. 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 Wahl-Blatz-Hicks-Vairamohan combination with Matsuoka because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for work management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for grouping work requests), and because modifying the Wahl-Blatz-Hicks-Vairamohan combination to include Matsuoka’s feature for including wherein the first function, the second function, and the third function are implemented in a form of a button, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of facilitating task completion (Matsuoka at paragraph 0006); 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.
34. Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahl in view of Blatz, in view of Hicks, in view of Vairamohan, in further view of Klaka et al., Pub. No.: US 2013/0124605 A1, [hereinafter Klaka].
As per claim 13, the Wahl-Blatz-Hicks-Vairamohan combination teaches the method of claim 8. Although not explicitly taught by the Wahl-Blatz-Hicks-Vairamohan combination, Klaka in the analogous art of task management systems teaches wherein selection of a user interface card associated with the second function causes displaying an edit interface for entering or correcting information for work request contents in that group (paragraph 0062, discussing that the presentation module also supports various other operations...For example, the screen display can include a UI control, the selection of which allows a user or other entity to create a new task. Selection of the UI control 412 can prompt the presentation module to present an input screen or in-line form for inputting the new task, if desired. The screen display also can include a UI control, the selection of which causes the task aggregator to move or copy a task represented by the task to other members of a group associated with the task. As such, tasks can be shared with other members of a group, if desired; paragraph 0061, discussing that the tasks can be provided with the ability to edit the tasks in-line. Thus, a user or other entity can interact with the tasks, and modifications made to the displayed task can be detected by the task engine and written to the associated tasks...; paragraphs 0052, 0065, 0072).
The Wahl-Blatz-Hicks-Vairamohan combination describes features related to work management systems. Klaka is directed towards a system for aggregating and presenting tasks. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards task management systems. 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 Wahl-Blatz-Hicks-Vairamohan combination with Klaka because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for work management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (systems for grouping work requests), and because modifying the Wahl-Blatz-Hicks-Vairamohan combination to include Klaka’s feature for including wherein selection of a user interface card associated with the second function causes displaying an edit interface for entering or correcting information for work request contents in that group, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of allowing workers to manage their tasks (Klaka at paragraph 0006); 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.
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 13, as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rogers et al., Pub. No.: US 2014/0143276 A1 – describes a system for management of information technology resources within an enterprise.
Colrain et al., Pub. No.: US 2009/0034537 A1 – describes techniques for routing client requests among a group of nodes offering a service .
Martin, Niels, et al. "Retrieving batch organisation of work insights from event logs." Decision Support Systems 100 (2017): 119-128 – describes identifying and formalizing three batch processing types, presents a resource-activity centered approach to identify batching behaviour in an event log, and introduces batch processing metrics to acquire knowledge on batch characteristics and its influence on process execution.
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 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