DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final office action.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, 13-16, 20-22, and 24-27 are currently pending and have been examined on their merits.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 are currently amended see REMARKS March 02, 2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 02, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-3, 7, 9-11, 13-16, 20-22, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, 13, and 25 recite a method (i.e. a series of steps), claims 14-16, and 26 recite a server, and claim 20-22, 24, and 27 recite a non-transitory storage medium, and therefore each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The representative claims 1, 14, and 20 recite a method for generating a project flow, applied in a scenario where a visual project flow needs to be generated for a project comprising: determining at least one process node corresponding to a target project to be configured, wherein the node attribute information comprises at least one of a node identification, a node name, a node collaboration user, node authorization information, a node execution duration, a node operation type, a node flow type, a node restriction type, a preceding node identification, and a node event; in response to receiving editing information that modifies the preceding node identification in the node attribute information, automatically recalculating, the node dependence of the at least one process node according to the modified preceding node identification; determining a node dependence of the at least one process node according to a preceding editable node identification in the node attribute information; generating, execution project flow information corresponding to the target project to be configured based on the node dependence and the node attribute information, wherein the execution project flow information comprises at least one of an execution order of a work in the project, a handover task of a department in charge of the process node in the project, a time period of a task execution cycle for the process node in the project and the displayed flowchart of the project; wherein the at least one editable item comprises an editable item for a flow state restriction of the current process node and an editable item for defining a downstream node to which the current process node is allowed to flow, and in response to receiving input information of the flow state restriction, automatically updating, allowable downstream process nodes of the current process node according to the flow state restriction; wherein the method further comprises: in response to receiving editing information for the node attribute information, processing, the at least one editable item of the current process node corresponding to the node attribute information in the node information editing page; wherein processing, the at least one editable item corresponding to the node attribute information of the current process node in the node information editing page comprises at least one of the following: wherein the at least one editable item further comprises an editable item for a preceding node of the current process node, an in response to receiving input information of a node identification of the preceding node, (presenting) the input node identification in the editable item for the preceding node; or wherein the at least one editable item further comprises an editable item for an authorized role of the current process node, and in response to receiving input information of the authorized role of the current process node, (presenting) the input authorized role in the editable item for the authorized role; or wherein the at least one editable item further comprises an editable item for an associated role, and in response to receiving input information of an associated role of the current process node, (presenting) the input associated role in the editable item for the associated role; or wherein the at least one editable item further comprises an editable item for editing the node restriction type of the current process node, the editable item for the node restriction type indicates whether the current process node is a restricted node, an in response to receiving input information about whether the current process node is of a node restriction type, (presenting) the input node restriction type in the editable item for the node restriction type; or wherein the at least one editable item further comprises an editable item for editing the node execution duration of the current process node, the editable item for the node execution duration comprises an editable item for scheduling information of the current process node and an editable item for execution duration of the current process node, in response to receiving input information of the scheduling information of the current process node, (presenting) the input scheduling information in the editable item for scheduling information, and in response to receiving input information of the execution duration of the current process node, (presenting) the input execution duration in the editable item for execution duration; or wherein the at least editable item further comprises an editable item for the node operation type of the current process node, the editable item for the node operation type indicates whether the current process node is deletable, and in response to receiving input information on whether the current process node is deletable, (presenting) the input node operation type in the editable item for the node operation type; or wherein the at least one editable item further comprises an editable item for the node flow type of the current process node, the node flow type indicates whether the current process node requires confirmation by multiple parties, and in response to receiving input information of the node flow type, (presenting) the input node flow type in the editable item for the node flow type; or wherein the at least one editable item further comprises an editable item for a node event of the current process node, and in response to receiving input information of the node event, (presenting) the input node event in the editable item for the node event.
The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims are found to be considered a method of organizing human activity as they relate towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. As the claims recite a method for generating and managing a project flow by determining a series of nodes and their attributes and dependencies. The method merely recites a series of steps for planning, managing, editing, and executing a project flow or a series of steps for completing a project.
Alternatively, the claims also recite a mental process. The claims recite merely generating a project flow for executing a target project by determining a process node or a step corresponding to a target project and determining node attribute information and dependency. The examiner finds these limitations to merely be observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. Furthermore, the examiner finds that a user could mentally or with the aid of a “pen and paper” perform the steps of managing a project flow when developing a project or task that needs to be completed and detailing the various nodes or elements of the project and their dependency or connection to other steps or elements.
Therefore, the examiner finds the claims to recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?): The claims additionally recite;
Claim 1: A server, a digitized project flow, displaying, by the server, the at least one process node in a space configuration page; in response to detecting a trigger operation comprising a clicking or dragging operation on a process node of the at least one process node jumping, by the server, from displaying the space configuration page to displaying a node information editing page corresponding to the process node to edit node attribute information of the process node in at least one editable item on the node information editing page, a platform or a system, and sending, by the server, the execution project flow information to a mobile terminal so that the mobile terminal dynamically displays the execution project flow information on the platform or the system in a preset form to supervise for process nodes via the platform or the system, wherein the preset form comprises at least one of: a form of a document or a form of a flowchart, and displaying by the server.
Claim 14: A server, comprising: one or more processors; and a storage apparatus, which is configured to store one or more programs, a digitized project flow, a platform or a system, display the at least one process node in a space configuration page; in response to detecting a trigger operation comprising a clicking or dragging operation on a process node of the at least one process node jumping, by the server, from displaying the space configuration page to displaying a node information editing page, and sending, by the server, the execution project flow information to a mobile terminal so that the mobile terminal dynamically displays the execution project flow information on the platform or the system in a preset form to supervise for process nodes via the platform or the system, wherein the preset form comprises at least one of: a form of a document or a form of a flowchart, and displaying by the server.
Claim 20: A non-transitory storage medium containing computer-executable instructions that are executed by a computer processor, a digitized project flow, a platform or a system, display the at least one process node in a space configuration page; in response to detecting a trigger operation comprising a clicking or dragging operation on a process node of the at least one process node jumping, by the server, from displaying the space configuration page to displaying a node information editing page, and send the execution project flow information to a mobile terminal so that the mobile terminal dynamically displays the execution of the project flow information on the platform or the system in a preset form to supervise for process nodes via the platform or the system, wherein the preset form comprises at least one of: a form of a document or a form of a flowchart, and displaying by the server.
However, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Merely utilizing a generic computer system to perform the claim limitations of determining a process node corresponding to a target project, determining node attribute information, determine a node dependency, and determine execution project flow information is not an improvement in a technology or technical field. Accordingly, the 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.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?): As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more.
Claims 2-3, 7, 9-11, 13 and 15-16, 21-22, and 24-27 are further narrowing the abstract idea of generating a project flow by determining a series of node attribute and dependency information.
Claims 2-3, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-16, 21-22, and 24-27 do not recite any further additional elements than those in the above discussion.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, 13-16, 20-22, and 24-27 are rejected under U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed March 02, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, 13-16, 20-22, and 24-27 under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea as they recite a method that request modifying a preceding node identification and recalculating node dependence and re-determining the structured dependency relationship among various nodes based on the modified input. As such the applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mental process as the claims recite an operation that dynamically maintains structured workflow consistency. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims recite a method for generating a project flow (which is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to include merely a visual representation such as a chart of a series of steps or elements arranged in an order to complete a project which would include any project as simple as one or two tasks) comprising: determining at least one process node corresponding to a target project to be configured and determining node attributed information; determining a node dependence; generating execution project flow information; and presenting the execution project flow information. These steps recite a mental process as they are merely a method for generating a project flow or a chart based on identified node or element information. A person would be capable of determining and generating a project flow or a chart representing the steps and elements of a project by identifying the various nodes or parts of the project and their respective information corresponding to elements such as their dependence or relationship to other nodes or tasks. For example, a project manager would be able to write out and construct a project flow comprising a series of nodes using simple tools such as pen and paper. The claims also recite a method for editing node information by merely inputting information. The examiner finds that inputting information to change node characteristics is a process that can be performed by a user using simple tools such as pen and paper. The newly amended claim limitations recite receiving editing information that edits node attribute information and recalculating the node dependency and updating downstream process nodes. However, the newly amended claim limitations merely further limit the abstract idea of generating and updating a project flow visualization based on received user input. As receiving editing information that modifies node attribute information and recalculating the node dependency or updating the project flow after receiving an edit to a node are steps that can be practically performed by a person mentally or using simple tools such as pen and paper. Additionally, the claim limitations recite concepts relating to ideas the courts have identified as being mental processes such as observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions as well as claims to collect information, analyze it, and display certain results. The claims recite a method for observing and evaluating node information and input information editing the nodal information to determine a project flow. Furthermore, the courts have stated that claims performing a mental process in a computer environment still recite a mental process. Therefore, the claims recite a mental process. Alternatively, the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity as they merely recite a series of steps and rules to follow for generating a project flow by identifying nodes to be used and determining node attributes such as dependence. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The applicant further argues that the additional elements are directed to a practical application as they recite automatically recalculating node dependency upon modification of a preceding node and automatically updating allowable downstream nodes based on a flow state restriction. However, the examiner finds that the additional elements merely recite “apply it” or applying generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea. As having a generic electronic device and system perform the method of generating a project flow based on corresponding node information, allowing user to interact with digital elements such as editing information, and displaying the execution project flow information is not an improvement in a technology or technical field. Merely reciting a server and a mobile device for sending and displaying information to present a flowchart is merely applying generic computer elements to perform generic computer functions. As applying a generic computer element of a server to perform the abstract idea of determining a node and a node dependency and generating project flow information based on the determined information, as well as applying the server to perform a generic function of sending information to a mobile terminal are not improvement to a technology or technical field. Additionally, merely having a computer automatically perform a basic function such as recalculating a node dependency and updating allowable downstream nodes based on a user input are not improvements to a technology or technical field. But merely reciting using a generic computer to perform the steps of receiving information and processing it to generate an output. The claims do not recite an improvement in a technology on how information is displayed or manipulated in a computer environment but merely recites a generic computer for displaying information to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
The applicant argues that the additional elements direct the claims to being significantly more as they recite and improvement in preventing inconsistent dependency configurations and invalid downstream transitions. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as generating a project flow for a target project based on a plurality of user inputs and editing and managing the project flow based on further user inputs is an abstract idea. While the additional elements of an electronic device and a platform or a system to perform the abstract idea are directed to merely “apply it.” Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more as they do not recite an improvement in a technology or technical field.
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that claims 2-3, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-16, 21-22, and 24-27 allowable as being dependent on claims 1, 14, and 20 are therefore also rejected U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Khorsheed (US 2012/0330709) Project management systems and methods thereof.
Rich (US 2006/0271390) Integrated system, tools, and methods for designing automated business process applications.
Ho (US 2002/0156814) Method and apparatus for visual business computing.
Harashima (US 2008/0077902) Method of determining range of change in design, design change range determining apparatus, and design change range determining system.
Wefers (US 2005/0138031) Systems and methods for assigning task-oriented roles to users.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY RUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-5902. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on 5712726782. 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.
/COREY RUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629