Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 10/27/2025 has been considered.
Claim 16 is cancelled. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 7-12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the name”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slattery (U.S. Patent No. 7,881,990), in view of Hartigan et. al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0204367)
Regarding claim 1, Slattery teaches measuring, at a worker computing device, an active window during at least one time interval; measured over the at least one-time interval, matching active window to a file and tabulating total time spent by the worker, (a time tracking application may automatically track the amount of time a user spends performing activities using one or more user applications (e.g., computer system applications). The tracked time may then be used, for example, to prepare invoices for a client for the activities performed. To automatically track time for a user, a time tracking application may monitor a user's activities with the user application and store time tracking entries with the types of activities performed by the user and the time spent performing the activities, Col.1 ln 31-40)
Slattery does not explicitly teach establishing a convention for file names comprising unique task metadata; naming at least one file according to an established convention, tabulating total time based task metadata included in the name of the at least one file; Slattery teaches the time tracking application 107 may store a client identity 353 with the time tracking entries. For example, the time tracking application 107 may determine that the opened file is associated with Client A and may store a client indicator 311 indicating "Client A". In some embodiments, the time tracking application 107 may access information stored in the file the system user 101 opened to determine the identity of the client 353, Col.6 ln 43-67.
However, Hartigan teaches the activity information (time spent, categorization, etc.) collected for a task is used to generate reports of the timekeepers' activities... multi-level hierarchical of task categorization is maintained, [22], the categories may be different entries in a single level categorization scheme (e.g., each activity is assigned to a single project), or may organized according to a multi-level hierarchy (e.g., a client and matter in a two-level hierarchy (unique task metadata)), [43], make decisions which of the stored categorization data should be associated with a task. These decisions are made through the use of criteria stored in the category and criteria database 34.. Examples of criteria for word processing applications and spread sheet applications are file name and file directory, [46] ,the criteria is a directory in which a file being processed by the word processing application is located, the criteria is a name of a file being processed by the word processing application, Claims 23-24, selecting a start time when a user begins to use an application to perform a task on the end user computer; detecting a stop time when a user stops performing the task; storing the start and stop times as an activity; claim 19, reporting the activity and the designated category, claim 20.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify active window of the automatic tracking system of Slattery to include file system-based task indexing, as taught by Hartigan, in order to provide a multi-level hierarchical categorization of tasks, track time efficiently and accurately by the timekeepers, [9-10, 14]. Applying Hartigan’s folder and file-based indexing to Slattery’s time tracking system would have been a predictable design choice to improve automated task attribution and reporting accuracy in billing and productivity environment.
Regarding claim 2, Slattery teaches generating an invoice based on the tabulation of the total time spent by the worker, (The tracked time may then be used, for example, to prepare invoices for a client for the activities performed, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Slattery the unique task metadata comprises a client identification, (the time tracking application 107 may store a client identity 353 with the time tracking entries, Col. 3 ln 45-55).
Regarding claim 4, Slattery teaches a project identification associated with the client identification, (the time tracking entries may, for example, store activity identifiers 325 as determined by the time tracking application 107 from analyzing the user application activities 103, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Slattery teaches the unique task metadata comprises the task identification associated with a project identification, Fig. 3, 9b.
Regarding claim 6, Slattery teaches the unique task metadata comprises a subtask identification associated with the task identification, (generating a second time tracking entry comprising a second activity identifier, Claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Slattery teaches automatic time tracking, comprising matching the active window, measured over at least one time interval, to the at least one file; and tabulating total time spent by the worker, (a time tracking application may automatically track the amount of time a user spends performing activities using one or more user applications (e.g., computer system applications). The tracked time may then be used, for example, to prepare invoices for a client for the activities performed. To automatically track time for a user, a time tracking application may monitor a user's activities with the user application and store time tracking entries with the types of activities performed by the user and the time spent performing the activities, Col.1 ln 31-40).
Slattery does not explicitly teach creating at least one folder for a task in a digital file system; storing at least one file, with unique metadata included in the name of the at least one file, inside the at least one folder; creating a folder-to-task index; creating a file-to-task index based on a file-to-folder index and a storage location of the file;
However, Hartigan teaches the categories may be different entries in a single level categorization scheme (e.g., each activity is assigned to a single project), or may organized according to a multi-level hierarchy (e.g., a client and matter in a two-level hierarchy (unique task metadata)), [43], make decisions which of the stored categorization data should be associated with a task. These decisions are made through the use of criteria stored in the category and criteria database 34.. Examples of criteria for word processing applications and spread sheet applications are file name and file directory, [46], client/matter combinations are stored in the category and criteria database 34, [47], the criteria is a directory in which a file being processed by the word processing application is located, the criteria is a name of a file being processed by the word processing application, Claims 23-24. Note: folder to task association (directory corresponding to a client/matter/task) and a file to task association derived from the file’s storage location and name.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify active window of the automatic tracking system of Slattery to include file system-based task indexing, as taught by Hartigan, in order to provide a multi-level hierarchical categorization of tasks, track time efficiently and accurately by the timekeepers, [9-10, 14]. Applying Hartigan’s folder and file-based indexing to Slattery’s time tracking system would have been a predictable design choice to improve automated task attribution and reporting accuracy in billing and productivity environment.
Regarding claim 8, Slattery the at least one file contains at least one email, document, presentation, database, voicemail, audio file, image file, video file, social media, and web site, Fig. 9c.
Regarding claim 9, Slattery teaches comprising ranking at least one task in terms of value, using an hourly-rate scale for ranking, (track the time until the file is closed, and then store a time tracking entry 307 indicating the file was reviewed for 2 hours, Fig. 9d.
Regarding claim 10, Slattery teaches tabulating a total rate for at least one task, (the time tracking entries may be organized into an invoice 999. Additional data (e.g., billing rates) may be collected, for example, from an external storage device, Fig. 9a.
Regarding claims 11-12, Hartigan teaches an API is used to create at least one index, the at least one index is created by using a scraping script to scan file data, [15, 40-41, 59].
Regarding claim 14, Hartigan teaches a remote server, matching the at least one active window, measured over the at least one interval of time, to the at least one file, is executed on a remote server, [22, 50-51].
Regarding claims 13, 17-20, the limitations are the same or similar to claims 1-10 and the same rejection applies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Hartigan reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm 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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627