DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action rejection on the merits. Claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been addressed below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 06, 2021, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 (related to the 103 Rejection) have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Rejection based on a newly cited reference(s) follows.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 (related to the 101 Rejection) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states, on pages 9-10, that, when viewed as a whole, claim 21 clearly incorporates any potential abstract idea that may be found into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. More specifically, the claim recites specific structures and functional configurations that cooperate to define an improvement to graphical user interfaces. Specifically, the Assignee submits that claim 21 recites a specific manner of displaying an information pane indicating incoming and outgoing work item relationships and providing controls for modifying the dependency relationships. This allows the modification of dependency relationships from within the context of the user interface and within the context of an informational view of said dependency relationships, eliminating the need to instantiate a separate application or navigate traditional work item editing interfaces, resulting in an improvement to scheduling user interfaces.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant. These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes managing personal behavior. In this case, displaying and/or updating a dependency between a first work item and a second work item is a form of managing personal behavior (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), following rules or instructions). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The main functions recited in claim 21 are merely used to: collect data (e.g. receive updated dependency information of the work items), analyze the data (e.g. update dependency information of the work items), and display certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g. display dependency information). Those are functions that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Also, the interface elements are considered “field of use” (MPEP 2106.05h) at step 2A, Prong 2; as they’re just used to receive updated dependencies and display updated information, but does not improve the interface. At step 2B, instructions to display and/or arrange information in a graphical user interface may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (MPEP 2106.05a). In this case, the user interface is merely used to arrange information (e.g., presenting a visualization based on a selection in a manner that assists users in processing information more quickly, which is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.05a).
Lastly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, claim 21 is ineligible.
Independent claims 29 and 34 recite similar features and therefore are rejected for the same reasons as independent claim 21. Claims 22-28, 30-33, and 35-40 are rejected for having the same deficiencies as those set forth with respect to the claims that they depend from, independent claims 21, 29, and 34.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without reciting significantly more.
Independent Claim 21
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”) on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim 21 is directed to a method which is a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One - Claim 21 recites: A method comprising: displaying a scheduling including: a timeline including a set of dates arranged along a first axis and a set of work item labels arranged along a second axis; a first work item element aligned with a first work item label of the set of work item labels, the first work item element having a length extending between a first end aligned with a first date of the set of dates and a second end aligned with a second date of the set of dates; and a second work item element aligned with a second work item label of the set of work item labels, the second work item element having a length extending between a first end aligned with a third date of the set of dates and a second end aligned with a fourth date of the set of dates; in response to a create dependency displayed at an end of associated with the first work item element or displayed at an end of the second work item element, generating a dependency path between the first work item element and the second work item element, the dependency path connecting the second end of the first work item element to the first end of the second work item element; storing a dependency relationship between a first work item associated with the first work item label and a second work item associated with the second work item label based on the user interaction; in response to detecting a user input in relation to the dependency path, the first work item element, or the second work item element, displaying a dependency information, the dependency information including a user input for modifying the dependency relationship; and updating display of the dependency in accordance with the modified dependency relationship. These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes managing personal behavior. In this case, displaying and/or updating a dependency between a first work item and a second work item is a form of managing personal behavior (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), following rules or instructions). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 - The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 21 includes additional elements: a scheduling interface; a timeline interface; a first work item interface element; a second work item interface element; a create dependency control; a dependency path user interface element; a dependency information pane; and a set of controls.
The scheduling interface includes a timeline interface, which includes work items user interface elements (Paragraphs 0093 & 0100). The timeline interface is merely used to display a timeline and a number of work item UI elements (Paragraph 0217). The first and second work item interface elements are merely used to display the start day and the end day of a work item and to change the start day and the end day of a work item (Paragraph 0102 & Paragraph 0106). The create dependency control is merely used to create a dependency between a first work item user interface element and a second work item user interface element (Paragraph 0126). The dependency path user interface element is merely used to provide one or more visual representations of the dependency (Paragraphs 0133-0134). The dependency information pane is merely used to display incoming and outgoing work item information associated with the dependency (Paragraphs 0146-0148). The set of controls is merely used to modify a dependency (Paragraphs 0146 & 0150, delete dependency). Merely stating that the step is performed by a computer component results in “apply it” on a computer (MPEP 2106.05f). These interface elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Also, the interface elements are considered “field of use” (MPEP 2106.05h) since they’re just used to receive updated dates and/or dependencies and display updated information, but does not improve the interface. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims describe how to generally “apply” the concept of displaying dependency information related to a selected work item. The specification shows that the scheduling interface includes a timeline interface, which includes work items user interface elements (Paragraphs 0093 & 0100). The timeline interface is merely used to display a timeline and a number of work item UI elements (Paragraph 0217). The first and second work item interface elements are merely used to display the start day and the end day of a work item and to change the start day and the end day of a work item (Paragraph 0102 & Paragraph 0106). The create dependency control is merely used to create a dependency between a first work item user interface element and a second work item user interface element (Paragraph 0126). The dependency path user interface element is merely used to provide one or more visual representations of the dependency (Paragraphs 0133-0134). The dependency information pane is merely used to display incoming and outgoing work item information associated with the dependency (Paragraphs 0146-0148). The set of controls is merely used to modify a dependency (Paragraphs 0146 & 0150, delete dependency). Also, the interface elements are considered a conventional computer function of “mere data gathering” since they’re just used to receive updated dates and/or dependencies, wherein the updated information is used to recalculate the start and end dates of successor tasks and display the updated information. See also MPEP 2106.05d, performing repetitive calculations. Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to an abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 29 is directed to a system at step 1, which is a statutory category. Claim 29 recites similar limitations as claim 29 and is rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2; and step 2b. Claim 29 further recites: a display; a processor; and a memory. The display is merely used to output information and display a user interface (Paragraphs 0082 & 0090). The processor is merely used to implement embodiments and/or features of the present disclosure (Paragraph 0075). The memory is merely used to store instructions (Paragraph 0077). These elements of “display,” “processor,” and “memory” are treated as just an explicit “processor/computer” for executing the operations and are treated under MPEP 2106.05f in the same manner as claim 21. Accordingly, these limitations are viewed as “apply it on a computer” at step 2a, prong 2 and step 2b and also “field of use” since it outputs scheduling information to a display and/or pane. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 34 is directed to a method at step 1, which is a statutory category. Claim 34 recites similar limitations as claim 21 and claim 29 and is rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2; and step 2b. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22-28 and 35-40 are not directed to any additional claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above - such as: wherein the dependency control includes a create blocked-by dependency control; wherein at least one create dependency control associated with the first work item user interface element; wherein the at least one create dependency control is displayed proximate the first work item user interface element; wherein the user input in relation to the dependency path comprises hovering, dwelling, contacting, or clicking on the dependency path; in response to determining that the dependency relationship is schedule-broken, displaying an indicator that the dependency relationship is schedule-broken; and output dependency information in an information pane; wherein the dependency information pane further includes a delete dependency control to delete the dependency relationship between the first work item and the second work item. The additional functions of the dependency control are merely describing how the dependencies are created (Paragraphs 0125-0126) and how the dependency information of a selected work item is outputted to a user (Paragraphs 0146-0150). Merely stating that the step is performed by a computer component (e.g., user interface) results in “apply it” on a computer (MPEP 2106.05f) being applicable at both Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B. Also, using controls to receive inputs of a dependency between a first work item and a second work item is considered “field of use” (MPEP 2106.05h) at step 2A, Prong 2; since they are just used to receive dependency information and do not improve the interface. At Step 2B, the controls are considered a conventional computer function of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” (MPEP 2106.05d). Further, instructions to display and/or arrange information in a graphical user interface may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (MPEP 2106.05a). Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to an abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 30-33 are not directed to any additional claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above - such as: wherein the dependency path representing the dependency relationship being a non-broken dependency or a broken dependency; rendering a first portion of the dependency path with a first visual appearance and a second portion of the dependency path with a second visual appearance, the first visual appearance representing the first work item being associated with a first set of resources, and the second visual appearance representing the second work item being associated with a second set of resources; wherein rendering the first work item user interface element comprises rendering, with the first work item user interface element, one or more of a work item identifier, a work item type, a creator identifier, a date created, a work item title, a work item description, a scheduled start, a scheduled end, an assignee identifier, an actual start, or an actual end, associated with the first work item; and wherein the first work item user interface element further comprises the at least one create dependency control associated with the first work item user interface element. The additional functions are merely indicating/outputting whether the dependency path has a broken or non-broken relationship (Paragraphs 0142-0143) and set of resources associated with the work item (Paragraph 0144). Merely stating that the step is performed by a computer component (user interface) results in “apply it” on a computer (MPEP 2106.05f) being applicable at both Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B. Also, using an indicator to display whether a predecessor task is delayed (e.g., broken or non-broken) is considered “field of use” (MPEP 2106.05h) at step 2A, Prong 2; since it’s just used to display information and does not improve the interface. At Step 2B, the indicator and work item user interface elements are considered a conventional computer function of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” (MPEP 2106.05d). Further, instructions to display and/or arrange information in a graphical user interface may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (MPEP 2106.05a). Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to an abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TeamGantt (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvEHmcZcMeA, publicly available on 04/10/2011), in view of Sourov et al. (US 2008/0027776 A1).
Regarding claim 21 (Currently Amended), TeamGantt discloses a computer implemented method comprising: displaying a scheduling interface including: a timeline interface including a set of dates arranged along a first axis and a set of work item labels arranged along a second axis; a first work item user interface element aligned with a first work item label of the set of work item labels, the first work item user interface element having a length extending between a first end aligned with a first date of the set of dates and a second end aligned with a second date of the set of dates; and a second work item user interface element aligned with a second work item label of the set of work item labels, the second work item user interface element having a length extending between a first end aligned with a third date of the set of dates and a second end aligned with a fourth date of the set of dates (see time 0:01 of the video; The dates is the timeline interface including a set of dates arranged along a first axis; The Demo Project column is the set of work item labels arranged along a second axis; The Design Home user interface element is the first work item user interface element aligned with a first work item label of the set of work item labels; The Design About Us user interface element is the second work item user interface element aligned with a second work item label of the set of work item labels);
PNG
media_image1.png
651
1154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in response to a create dependency user interaction with at least one create dependency control displayed at an end of associated with the first work item user interface element or displayed at an end of the second work item user interface element, generating a dependency path user interface element between the first work item user interface element and the second work item user interface element, the dependency path user interface element connecting the second end of the first work item user interface element to the first end of the second work item user interface element; storing a dependency relationship between a first work item associated with the first work item label and a second work item associated with the second work item label based on the user interaction with the at least one create dependency control (see time 0:01-00:19 of the video provided below, To add a dependency simply click on the arrows that are coming out of the task and drag to a task that you would like to link to the previous task);
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
649
1149
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in response to detecting a user input in relation to the dependency path user interface element, the first work item user interface element, or the second work item user interface element, displaying a dependency information pane in the scheduling interface, the dependency information pane including a set of controls for modifying the dependency relationship (see time 0:48-00:53 of the video, To remove a dependency simply click edit task and then click remove; It can be noted that the claim language is written in alternative form. The limitation taught by Team Gantt is based on “user input in relation to the dependency path user interface element.");
PNG
media_image4.png
650
1156
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
651
1155
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and in response to detecting a user input with respect to one or more controls of the set of controls: modifying the dependency relationship; and updating display of the dependency path user interface element in accordance with the modified dependency relationship (see time 0:48-00:53 of the video, To remove a dependency simply click edit task and then click remove; As stated in Paragraphs 0146 & 0150 of Applicant’s specification, the one or more controls in the pane may include a delete dependency control).
PNG
media_image5.png
651
1155
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
669
1155
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Although Team Gantt discloses all the limitations above and creating a dependency relationship between a first work item associated with the first work item label and a second work item associated with the second work item label, Team Gantt does not specifically disclose wherein the dependency relationship is stored in a database.
However, Sourov et al. discloses a computer implemented method comprising: …; storing a dependency relationship between a first work item associated with the first work item label and a second work item associated with the second work item label based on the user interaction with the at least one create dependency control (Paragraph 0045, FIG. 8 is a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of a data structure relating to a project and its tasks. Each project may have project-related data stored in a data structure associated with the project 802; Paragraph 0046, FIG. 9 is a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of a data structure relating to a task. The task data structure 902 may comprise input data and other information associated with a task. As examples, task-related data may include, e.g., a task number, description, start date, duration, resources assigned to the task, dependencies or constraints, and an annotation or explanation relating to the task's schedule).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method comprising a scheduling interface used for creating and displaying a dependency path between the first work item user interface element and the second work item user interface element of the invention Team Gantt to further specify wherein the created dependency path is stored in a database of the invention of Sourov et al. because doing so would allow the method to store dependencies or constraints associated with the project (see Sourov et al., Paragraph 0045). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element 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.
Regarding claim 29 (Currently Amended), TeamGantt discloses a computer implemented method comprising: displaying a scheduling interface including a computing device comprising: a display; … configured to: render, in a graphical user interface shown on the display and generated by the instance of software: a timeline interface including a set of dates arranged along a first axis and a set of work item labels arranged along a second axis; a plurality of work item user interface elements aligned with respective work item labels, the plurality of work item user interface elements including: a first work item user interface element aligned with a first work item label of the set of work item labels, the first work item user interface element having a length extending between a first end aligned with a first date of the set of dates and a second end aligned with a second date of the set of dates; and a second work item user interface element aligned with a second work item label of the set of work item labels, the second work item user interface element having a length extending between a first end aligned with a third date of the set of dates and a second end aligned with a fourth date of the set of dates (see time 0:01 of the video; The dates is the timeline interface including a set of dates arranged along a first axis; The Demo Project column is the set of work item labels arranged along a second axis; The Design Home user interface element is the first work item user interface element aligned with a first work item label of the set of work item labels; The Design About Us user interface element is the second work item user interface element aligned with a second work item label of the set of work item labels);
PNG
media_image1.png
651
1154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of create dependency controls associated with the plurality of work item user interface elements, including at least one create dependency control associated with the first work item user interface element or the second work item user interface element; and a dependency path user interface element between the second end of the first work item user interface element and the first end of the second work item user interface element, the dependency path representing a dependency relationship between a first work item associated with the first work item label and a second work item associated with the second work item label (see time 0:01-00:19 of the video, To add a dependency simply click on the arrows that are coming out of the task and drag to a task that you would like to link to the previous task);
PNG
media_image3.png
649
1149
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and in response to detecting a user input with respect to one or more controls of the set of controls: modifying the dependency relationship; and updating display of the dependency path user interface element in accordance with the modified dependency relationship (see time 0:48-00:53 of the video, To remove a dependency simply click edit task and then click remove; It can be noted that the claim language is written in alternative form. The limitation taught by Team Gantt is based on “user input in relation to the dependency path user interface element.");
PNG
media_image4.png
650
1156
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
651
1155
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and in response to a user input in relation to the dependency path user interface element, render, in the graphical user interface shown on the display and generated by the instance of software, a dependency information pane including a set of controls for modifying the dependency relationship (see time 0:48-00:53 of the video, To remove a dependency simply click edit task and then click remove; As stated in Paragraphs 0146 & 0150 of Applicant’s specification, the one or more controls in the pane may include a delete dependency control).
PNG
media_image5.png
651
1155
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
669
1155
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Although Team Gantt discloses all the limitations above and creating a dependency relationship between a first work item associated with the first work item label and a second work item associated with the second work item label, Team Gantt does not specifically disclose the processor and memory used for executing instructions.
However, Sourov et al. discloses a computing device comprising: a display; a processor; and a memory cooperating with the processor to instantiate an instance of software configured to: render, in a graphical user interface shown on the display and generated by the instance of software (Paragraph 0029, The computing device on which the system is implemented may include a central processing unit, memory, input devices (e.g., keyboard and pointing devices), output devices (e.g., display devices), and storage devices (e.g., disk drives). The memory and storage devices are computer-readable media that may contain instructions that implement the system).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the computing device comprising a scheduling interface used for creating and displaying a dependency path between the first work item user interface element and the second work item user interface element of the invention Team Gantt to further specify wherein the computing device comprises a processor and a memoryu of the invention of Sourov et al. because doing so would allow the computing device to implement instructions (see Sourov et al., Paragraph 0029). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element 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.
Regarding claim 34 (Currently Amended), TeamGantt discloses a computer-implemented method … comprising a display, the method comprising: displaying a timeline interface including a set of dates arranged along a first axis and a set of work item labels arranged along a second axis; in response to a first user input, rendering, by the instance of software, a first work item user interface element aligned with a first work item label of the set of work item labels, the first work item user interface element having a length extending between a first end aligned with a first date of the set of dates and a second end aligned with a second date of the set of dates; in response to a second user input, rendering, by the instance of software, a second work item user interface element aligned with a second work item label of the set of work item labels, the second work item user interface element having a length extending between a first end aligned with a third date of the set of dates and a second end aligned with a fourth date of the set of dates (see time 0:01 of the video; The dates is the timeline interface including a set of dates arranged along a first axis; The Demo Project column is the set of work item labels arranged along a second axis; The Design Home user interface element is the first work item user interface element aligned with a first work item label of the set of work item labels; The Design About Us user interface element is the second work item user interface element aligned with a second work item label of the set of work item labels);
PNG
media_image1.png
651
1154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in response to a user interaction with a create dependency control displayed at an end of the first work item user interface element: causing creation of a dependency relationship between a first work item associated with the first work item label and a second work item associated with the second work item label; determining an appearance of a dependency path user interface element between the first work item user interface element and the second work item user interface element, the dependency path user interface element connecting the second end of the first work item user interface element to the first end of the second work item user interface element; and rendering the dependency path user interface element according to the determined appearance (see time 0:01-00:19 of the video, To add a dependency simply click on the arrows that are coming out of the task and drag to a task that you would like to link to the previous task);
PNG
media_image3.png
649
1149
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and in response to detecting a user interaction in relation to the dependency path user interface element, the first work item user interface element, or the second work item user interface element, by the instance of software, rendering a dependency information pane, the dependency information pane including a set of controls for modifying the dependency relationship (see 0:48-00:53 of the video, To remove a dependency simply click edit task and then click remove; It can be noted that the claim language is written in alternative form. The limitation taught by Team Gantt is based on “user input in relation to the dependency path user interface element.");
PNG
media_image4.png
650
1156
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
651
1155
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and in response to detecting a user input with respect to one or more controls of the set of controls: modifying the dependency relationship; and updating display of the dependency path user interface element in accordance with the modified dependency relationship (see time 0:48-00:53 of the video, To remove a dependency simply click edit task and then click remove; As stated in Paragraphs 0146 & 0150 of Applicant’s specification, the one or more controls in the pane may include a delete dependency control).
PNG
media_image5.png
651
1155
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
669
1155
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Although Team Gantt discloses all the limitations above and creating a dependency relationship between a first work item associated with the first work item label and a second work item associated with the second work item label, Team Gantt does not specifically disclose the processor and memory used for executing instructions.
However, Sourov et al. discloses a computer-implemented method executed by an instance of software instantiated by cooperation of a processor and a memory of a computing device comprising a display, the method comprising (Paragraph 0029, The computing device on which the system is implemented may include a central processing unit, memory, input devices (e.g., keyboard and pointing devices), output devices (e.g., display devices), and storage devices (e.g., disk drives). The memory and storage devices are computer-readable media that may contain instructions that implement the system).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the computer comprising a scheduling interface used for creating and displaying a dependency path between the first work item user interface element and the second work item user interface element of the invention Team Gantt to further specify wherein the computer comprises a processor and a memory of the invention of Sourov et al. because doing so would allow the computing device to implement instructions (see Sourov et al., Paragraph 0029). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element 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.
Regarding claims 22 and 35 (Previously Presented), which are dependent of claims 21 and 34, the combination of Team Gantt and Sourov et al. discloses all the limitations in claims 21 and 34. Team Gantt further discloses in response to detecting a user request to display additional controls in relation to the first work item, displaying an additional control including: a create blocked-by dependency control; and a create blocking dependency control (see arrows below, As stated in Paragraph 0125 of Applicant’s specification, the blocked-by-dependency control is a control displayed proximate to the left end or proximate to the right end of the UI element. Therefore, based on broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, Team Gantt discloses a blocked-by-dependency control since it displays a control in the form of an arrow proximate to the left end or proximate to the right end of the UI element).
PNG
media_image3.png
649
1149
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 23 and 36 (Previously Presented), which are dependent of claims 21 and 34, the combination of Team Gantt and Sourov et al. discloses all the limitations in claims 21 and 34. Team Gantt further discloses wherein the first work item user interface element further comprises the at least one create dependency control associated with the first work item user interface element (see below, Examiner notes that the create dependency control is displayed proximate to the right end of the first work item user interface element).
PNG
media_image3.png
649
1149
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 24 and 37 (Previously Presented), which are dependent of claims 21 and 34, the combination of Team Gantt and Sourov et al. discloses all the limitations in claims 21 and 34. Team Gantt further discloses wherein the scheduling interface further includes: the at least one create dependency control proximate the first work item user interface element (see below, Examiner notes that the create dependency control is displayed proximate to the right end of the first work item user interface element).
PNG
media_image3.png
649
1149
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 25 and 38 (Previously Presented), which are dependent of claims 21 and 34, the combination of Team Gantt and Sourov et al. discloses all the limitations in claims 21 and 34. Team Gantt further discloses wherein the user input in relation to the dependency path comprises hovering, dwelling, contacting, or clicking on the dependency path (see below, Examiner notes that the create dependency control is displayed proximate to the right end of the first work item user interface element; It can be noted that the claim language is written in alternative form. The limitation taught by Team Gantt is based on “clicking on the dependency path”).
PNG
media_image7.png
647
1153
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
649
1149
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 26 and 39 (Currently Amended), which are dependent of claims 21 and 34, the combination of Team Gantt and Sourov et al. discloses all the limitations in claims 21 and 34. Team Gantt further discloses: in response to determining that the dependency relationship is schedule-broken, displaying, in the dependency information pane associated with the first work item, an indicator that the dependency relationship is schedule-broken (see below; Examiner notes that the red line represents a broken dependency since the end date of the work item #2 is later than the start data of the work item #3).
PNG
media_image8.png
641
1150
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 27 and 40 (Currently Amended), which are dependent of claims 21 and 34, the combination of Team Gantt and Sourov et al. discloses all the limitations in claims 21 and 34. Although Team Gantt further discloses a dependency information pane (see below), Team Gantt does not specifically disclose wherein the dependency information pane further includes an outgoing work item information pane associated with a third work item, wherein the third work item has a second dependency relationship with the first work item.
PNG
media_image5.png
651
1155
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Sourov et al. discloses wherein the dependency information pane further includes an outgoing work item information pane associated with a third work item, wherein the third work item has a second dependency relationship with the first work item (see Figure 3 and related text in Paragraph 0019, In some embodiments, the task driver user interface supports selecting a task driver to obtain additional information about the driver. For example, if the driver is the start or end date of a predecessor task, then the user can navigate to that predecessor task to see what drivers are affecting the scheduling for the predecessor task. If the driver is a resource calendar, then the user can select the driver to see a calendar control displaying the dates the resource is available. The user interface may allow users to navigate forward and backward through a chain of related drivers using controls provided by the user interface so that the user can browse through various tasks in the project to understand which tasks have constraints that could be modified to improve the project schedule. This type of navigation allows a project manager to quickly drill down into problem tasks to find the root task that is delaying the project, or to zoom out from a particular task to determine which related tasks are impacting the task's schedule; Paragraph 0037, FIG. 3 illustrates a user interface for the task driver system in one embodiment. The user interface 300 contains a list of tasks 305 and a task drivers pane 310. The list of tasks 305 lists the tasks that make up the project. For example, one task is named "Task 1," has a duration of 1 day, is scheduled to start on Nov. 30, 2005, has no leveling delay, and is expected to finish on Nov. 30, 2005. The list of tasks 305 contains a highlighted task 315, and the task drivers pane 310 is displaying details about the highlighted task 315. The task drivers pane contains the task's name 320, the start date 325 determined by the scheduling component, and a list of task drivers 327 affecting the start date of the task. The first task driver is a leveling delay 330 of 2 days. The remaining two task drivers, predecessor tasks 335, are grouped together by their type. The first predecessor task 340 is Task 6, and the second predecessor task 345 is Task 7. Both are of type "finish-to-start" indicating that they must finish before Task 8 can start. The list of task drivers 327 indicates that Task 8 could not be scheduled earlier without scheduling both Task 6 and Task 7 earlier, as well as causing the other work to be distributed in a way that reduces the leveling delay. The task drivers pane 310 may allow the user to select some of the drivers to view additional details; Paragraph 0038, FIG. 4 illustrates a user interface of the task driver system for displaying task driver details in one embodiment. The user interface 400 contains an active task pane 410 and a task driver detail pane 420. The active task pane 410 displays information about a currently selected task. For example, the active task pane 410 may contain task details 450 including the name of the task, the task's start date, and a list of task drivers affecting the scheduling of the task; Examiner notes that when the user clicks next 440, then the user may see the outgoing/successor tasks).
PNG
media_image9.png
418
530
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method comprising a scheduling interface used for creating and displaying a dependency path between the first work item user interface element and the second work item user interface element, wherein a dependency information pane is displayed in response to detecting a user input in relation to the dependency path user interface element of the invention Team Gantt to further specify wherein the dependency pane includes outgoing work item information (e.g., successor information of the task) of the invention of Sourov et al. because doing so would allow the dependency information pane to display a list of task drivers affecting the scheduling of the task, wherein a user may navigate a chain of tasks and drivers to visually determine the interaction among related tasks (see Sourov et al., Paragraphs 0028 & 0037-0038). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element 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.
Regarding claim 28 (Previously Presented), which is dependent of claim 21, the combination of Team Gantt and Sourov et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 21. Team Gantt further discloses wherein the dependency information pane further includes: a delete dependency control to delete the dependency relationship between the first work item and the second work item (see time 0:48-00:53 of the video, To remove a dependency simply click edit task and then click remove; As stated in Paragraphs 0146 & 0150 of Applicant’s specification, the one or more controls in the pane may include a delete dependency control).
PNG
media_image5.png
651
1155
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30 (Previously Presented), which is dependent of claim 29, the combination of Team Gantt and Sourov et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 29. Team Gantt further discloses wherein rendering the dependency path between the first work item user interface element and the second work item user interface element further comprises: selecting one of a first dependency path or a second dependency path for the dependency path between the first work item user interface element and the second work item user interface element, the first dependency path representing the dependency relationship being a non-broken dependency, and the second dependency path representing the dependency relationship being a broken dependency (see below; Examiner notes that the red line represents a broken dependency since the end date of the work item #2 is later than the start data of the work item #3).
PNG
media_image8.png
641
1150
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31 (Previously Presented), which is dependent of claim 29, the combination of Team Gantt and Sourov et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 29. Team Gantt further discloses wherein rendering the dependency path between the first work item user interface element and the second work item user interface element further comprises: rendering a first portion of the dependency path with a first visual appearance and a second portion of the dependency path with a second visual appearance, the first visual appearance representing the first work item being associated with a first set of resources, and the second visual appearance representing the second work item being associated with a second set of resources (see below; Examiner interprets “task T1 and resource John” as the “first visual appearance”. Also, “task T3 and resource Nathan” as the “second visual appearance”).
PNG
media_image8.png
641
1150
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 32 (Previously Presented), which is dependent of claim 29, the combination of Team Gantt and Sourov et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 29. Team Gantt further discloses wherein rendering the first work item user interface element comprises rendering, with the first work item user interface element, one or more of a work item identifier, a work item type, a creator identifier, a date created, a work item title, a work item description, a scheduled start, a scheduled end, an assignee identifier, an actual start, or an actual end, associated with the first work item (see below; It can be noted that the claim language is written in alternative form. The limitation taught by Team Gantt is based on an assignee identifier associated with the first work item).
PNG
media_image6.png
669
1155
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 33 (Previously Presented), which is dependent of claim 29, the combination of Team Gantt and Sourov et al. discloses all the limitations in claim 29. Team Gantt further discloses wherein the first work item user interface element further comprises the at least one create dependency control associated with the first work item user interface element (see below, Examiner notes that the user can click in an area proximate to the right end of the first work item user interface element to create a dependency between the first work item user interface and the second work item user interface).
PNG
media_image3.png
649
1149
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Sundling (WO 2013/158935 A1) – discloses a user interface element that identifies when all of the predecessor work activities to a given successor work activity in the VS have been completed, and represent this aggregated predecessor(s) status as a single icon next to the successor work activity to support rapid visual identification that all successor work has been completed and the successor work activity may now be started (see at least Paragraph 0009).
Shor Yaniv (WO 2017/158588 A1) – discloses a command via the GUI to change the start date of an activity to an earlier date, e.g., change the start date of the activity backwards. As indicated in block 1612, the processor may indicate whether a predecessor activity exists per the current activity. If a predecessor exists, the processor is to determine whether the new start date of the current activity is earlier than the end date of the predecessor, as indicated in block 1614. If the new start date of the current activity is earlier than the end date of the predecessor, the processor may receive a command via the GUI to set the new start date of the activity to match the predecessor's end date, as indicated in block 1616 (see at least Paragraph 0139).
Smartsheet (https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=drag+and+drop+dependencies+gantt+chart+&adlt=STRICT&mid=0D211D5903599CC6CF4F0D211D5903599CC6CF4F&mmscn=mtsc&aps=22&FORM=VMSOVR) – discloses generating a dependency path user interface element between the first work item user interface element and the second work item user interface element, the dependency path user interface element connecting the second end of the first work item user interface element to the first end of the second work item user interface element (see at least time 00:32-00:38).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARJORIE PUJOLS-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4668. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thru 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Patricia H Munson can be reached at (571)270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARJORIE PUJOLS-CRUZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights