DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 20, line 1, “computer readable” should be hyphenated.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 14-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Romagnino et al (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0209650 A1, hereinafter Romagnino).
Romagnino was cited on the IDS filed on 11/22/2024.
As per claim 1, Romagnino teaches the limitations as claimed, including a system, the system comprising:
a computing device, comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store an application program (Figure 1); and
a processor coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Figure 1) and configured to control a plurality of modules to execute instructions of the application program for accessing a plurality of tasks of the system (Paragraph [0002]); and
a computing server system configured to:
create different task queues (Paragraph [0069], “the user’s task queue can be a single task queue or can include multiple task queues”), skill groups (Paragraph [0015]), and prioritizations to organize the plurality of tasks based at least upon an urgency, a complexity, or a department of each task of the plurality of the tasks (Paragraph [0069]),
present information related to each of the plurality of tasks (Figure 11),
queue and route the plurality of tasks (Figure 11), and
obtain task completion information related to each of the plurality of tasks (Paragraph [0014]).
As per claim 2, Romagnino teaches that the computing device is used by a first user of the system to access the plurality of tasks in order to receive an assignment of one of the plurality of tasks, wherein the first user is associated with at least one of the skill groups (Figures 11 and 13).
As per claim 3, Romagnino teaches that the computing server system is configured to assign the one of the plurality of tasks to the first user based at least on an indicia of whether the first user is active or inactive (Paragraph [0052]).
As per claim 4, Romagnino teaches that the computing server system is configured to assign the one of the plurality of tasks to the first user in response to determining that the at least one of skill groups with which the first user is associated is active, the task queues that are children of the at least one of skill groups with which the first user is associated is active, the one of the plurality of tasks is available and open to be worked on, and one of the plurality of tasks is not a child task, and a parent task is used as a primary task to assign to the first user, wherein a time of requesting the one of the plurality of tasks by the first user is within the task's callable hours (Paragraph [0015]).
As per claim 5, Romagnino teaches that the computing server system is configured to sort the plurality of tasks in an ascending order based on a task queue's priority from the most important to the least important, and within each task queue, sort tasks in a descending order based on each task's priority from the most important to the least important (Paragraph [0018]).
As per claim 6, Romagnino teaches that the computing device is used by a second user of the system to access the plurality of tasks in order to assign or remove the first user from the at least one of the skill groups, wherein the second user includes at least one of a supervisor or an admin of the system (Paragraph [0144]).
As per claim 14, Romangino teaches that the computing server system is configured to generate and display a notification to the first user via the application program in response to detecting that the one of the plurality of tasks assigned to the first user has not been completed within a predefined length of time (Paragraph [0123]).
As per claim 15, Romagnino teaches that the computing server system is configured to control a timer after the predefined length of time and generate an alert to the first user via the application program to allow the first user to acknowledge the alert (Paragraph [0010]).
As per claim 16, Romagnino teaches that the computing server system is configured to return the one of the plurality of tasks assigned to the first user to a task queue by maintaining a priority of the one of the plurality of tasks in response to detecting that first user fails to acknowledge the alert after the timer has reached a timeout value (Paragraph [0110]).
As per claim 17, Romagnino teaches that the computing server system is configured to pause the one of the plurality of tasks assigned to the first user (Figure 11).
As per claim 19, it is a method claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 20, it is a medium claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory Kessler whose telephone number is (571)270-7762. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 - 5, Alternate Fridays 8:30-4.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at (571)272-3338. 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.
/GREGORY A KESSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197