DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communication: The Preliminary Amendment filed on 12/28/2023. This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-18, 20-21 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 20 and 21 are independent claims.
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 .
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 1-18, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-18 recite a method of information processing, which is within the statutory of a process; Claim 20 recite a terminal configured to process information, which is within the statutory class of a machine; Claim 21 recites a non-transitory storage medium storing program code for processing information, which is within the statutory class of a manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
Claims 1-18, 20-21, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Claims 1, 20, and 21 (claim 1 being representative) recites:
in response to a first user receiving an association request for task information of a second user, displaying a first control in a task interface of the first user; and
in response to a first predetermined operation on the first control, displaying a task sub-interface.
The limitations of “in response to a first user receiving an association request for task information of a second user, displaying a first control in a task interface of the first user” and “in response to a first predetermined operation on the first control, displaying a task sub-interface” as presently drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing tasks/activities) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the first predetermined operation on the first control; or (claim 20) a processor, and a memory; or (claim 21) a non-transitory storage medium, the claimed invention amounts to managing human activities/tasks. For example, but for the noted computer elements, the claim encompasses a person observing tasks and reminds others to perform their tasks on time in the manner described in the abstract idea. The examiner further notes that “methods of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility at Pg. 5). If the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing persona behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition, the limitations of “in response to a first user receiving an association request for task information of a second user, displaying a first control in a task interface of the first user” and “in response to a first predetermined operation on the first control, displaying a task sub-interface” are process steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe the abstract concept which correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Electric Power Group (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results is an abstract idea, even when limited to specific content). In addition, the limitations “displaying a first control in a task interface of the first user”, and “displaying a task sub-interface” correspond to concepts identified as abstract ides by the courts, such as in Apple v. Amaranth (Generating and transmitting menus).
As such, the limitations of claims 1, 20, and 21 are abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The additional elements merely amount to instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (a “memory”, a “processor”, “terminal”, and a “non-transitory storage medium”—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute program code to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) indicating mere instructions to apply an abstract idea does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools in a conventional way to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2. Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional generic computing elements (“memory”, a “processor”, “terminal”, and a “non-transitory storage medium”, describing the various components as general purpose, common, standard, known to one of ordinary skill, and at a high level of generality, and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements). Therefore, these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, translating, and displaying data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions).
Regarding dependent claims 2-18 are dependent on claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-18 recite the same abstract idea of processing information. The claims recite additional elements including:
The task information is displayed in the task sub-interface, the task information comprising objective task information and/or sub-task information, and the objective task information having an association relationship with the sub-task information (claim 2). These limitations describe the abstract concept which correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Electric Power Group (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results is an abstract idea, even when limited to specific content);
The task information comprises a first user identification (claim 3). This limitation describes the non-functional descriptive material;
wherein the first control is displayed in a predetermined region of the task interface, and the first control is associated with the objective task information of the first user (claim 4). These limitations describe the abstract concept which correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Electric Power Group (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results is an abstract idea, even when limited to specific content);
wherein the first control uniquely corresponds to the objective task information of the first user (claim 5). These limitations describe the abstract concept which correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Electric Power Group (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results is an abstract idea, even when limited to specific content).
when in response to receiving an association request related to the objective task information, the objective task information is displayed in the task sub-interface; or, when in response to receiving an association request related to the sub-task information, the sub-task information is displayed in the task sub-interface, and the objective task information having the association relationship with the sub-task information is displayed (claim 6). These limitations describe the abstract concept which correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Electric Power Group (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results is an abstract idea, even when limited to specific content).
wherein a second control corresponding to the task information is further displayed in the task sub-interface (claim 7). These limitations describe the abstract concept which correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Electric Power Group (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results is an abstract idea, even when limited to specific content).
when in response to receiving an association request related to the objective task information, displaying the second control in an association region of the objective task information in the task sub- interface; or, when in response to receiving an association request related to the sub-task information, determining the objective task information having the association relationship with the sub-task information, and displaying the second control in the association region of the objective task information of the task sub- interface (claim 8). These limitations describe the abstract concept which correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Electric Power Group (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results is an abstract idea, even when limited to specific content).
wherein the task information comprises objective task information and/or sub-task information, the method further comprising: in response to the task information of the second user having been associated with a first objective task information of the first user, forgoing displaying the task information of the second user in task sub- interface corresponding to the first objective task information (claim 9). These limitations describe the abstract concept which correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Electric Power Group (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results is an abstract idea, even when limited to specific content).
determining second objective task information of the first user that is unassociated with the task information of the second user, and displaying the task information of the second user in task sub- interface corresponding to the second objective task information (claim 10). These limitations describe the abstract concept which correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Electric Power Group (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results is an abstract idea, even when limited to specific content).
wherein in response to a second predetermined operation on the second control, displaying the task information in the task sub-interface is terminated (claim 11). These limitations describe the abstract concept which correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Electric Power Group (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results is an abstract idea, even when limited to specific content).
wherein a third control corresponding to the second user is displayed in the task sub-interface (claim 12). These limitations describe the abstract concept which correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Electric Power Group (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results is an abstract idea, even when limited to specific content).
wherein in response to a third predetermined operation on the third control, displaying the task information of the second user in the task sub-interface is terminated (claim 13). These limitations describe the abstract concept which correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Electric Power Group (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results is an abstract idea, even when limited to specific content).
wherein predetermined information corresponding to the number of pieces of task information displayed in the task sub-interface is further displayed near the first control (claim 14). These limitations describe the abstract concept which correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Electric Power Group (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results is an abstract idea, even when limited to specific content).
wherein the task information comprises objective task information and/or sub-task information, the objective task information having an association relationship with the sub-task information; the method further comprises: determining whether the objective task information and sub-task information contain an association request; determining the predetermined information based on the number of pieces of the objective task information containing the association request; or, determining the predetermined information based on the number of pieces of objective task information associated with the sub-task information containing the association request (claim 15). These limitations describe the abstract concept which correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Electric Power Group (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results is an abstract idea, even when limited to specific content).
wherein when the task information is not contained in the task sub-interface, the task sub-interface is closed, and the first control is not displayed in the task interface (claim 16). These limitations describe the abstract concept which correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Electric Power Group (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results is an abstract idea, even when limited to specific content).
wherein the in response to a first user receiving an association request for task information of a second user, displaying a first control in a task interface of the first user comprises: in response to the first user having a permission to the task information, displaying the first control in the task interface of the first user (claim 17). These limitations describe the abstract concept which correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Electric Power Group (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results is an abstract idea, even when limited to specific content).
in response to the first user having a permission to the task information, displaying the task information in the task sub-interface (claim 18). These limitations describe the abstract concept which correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Electric Power Group (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results is an abstract idea, even when limited to specific content).
Claims 1-18, 20-21 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
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 1-8, 11-18, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Beauchamp et al. (US 12141756 B1; hereinafter as Beauchamp); or in the alternative, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauchamp in view of SIM et al. (US 2025/0238652 A1; hereinafter as SIM).
As to claims 1, 20, 21, Beauchamp teaches:
(Claim 1) A method of information processing (see Fig. 2 and Col. 17, lines 7-29), comprising:
(Claim 20) A terminal, comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor; wherein the at least one memory is for storing program code, the at least one processor is for calling the program code stored in the at least one memory to (perform the following steps) (see Col. 1, lines 42-54):
(Claim 21) A non-transitory storage medium for storing program code, the program code for performing (see Fig. 2 and Col. 2, lines 26-39):
in response to a first user receiving an association request for task information of a second user, displaying a first control in a task interface of the first user (see Col. 1, lines 24-41; generate project-level graphical user interfaces within a collaboration environment. See Col. 3, line 67 through Col. 4, line 15; a given unit of work may have one or more assignees and/or collaborators working on the given work unit; Units of work may include one or more to-do items, action items, objectives, and/or other units of work one or more users should accomplish and/or plan on accomplishing; Units of work may be created by the given user and assigned to one or more other users; Individual units of work may include one or more of an individual task, and individual sub-task, and/or other units of work assigned to and/or associated with one or more users. See Fig. 3 and Col. 15, lines 4-67; the user interface 300 may comprise a project-level graphical user interface 302 for a given project 301. Col. 12, line 58 through Col. 13, line 35; the values of a supporting parameter may be visually represented as a list of unit of work that support a project; the individual units of work may be visually represented by values of work unit parameter including, but not limited to, title, ..); and
in response to a first predetermined operation on the first control, displaying a task sub-interface (Col. 12, line 58 through Col. 13, line 35; individual units of work may be selected from the graphical user interface to take the user to a work unit page for an individual unit of work. See Col. 3, line 67 through Col. 4, line 15; Individual units of work may include one or more of an individual task, and individual sub-task, and/or other units of work assigned to and/or associated with one or more users).
Alternatively, if Beauchamp is not interpreted to teach “in response to a first predetermined operation on the first control, displaying a task sub-interface”, SIM is relied upon for teaching the limitations:
displaying a first control in a task interface of the first user (see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0037; a user interface having a list of controls corresponding to a list of tasks); and
in response to a first predetermined operation on the first control, displaying a task sub-interface (see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0037; i.e., the “Task A” indicates that there are 3 subtasks and may display the three subtasks upon a user selection).
Both references are directed to a task user interface; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the task user interface disclosed in Beauchamp to include the specific feature of displaying a selectable list of tasks to reveals the sub-task interface as taught by SIM to achieve the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter and the advantages provided by SIM that providing the task user interface would allow the user to easily achieve their goals; thus, promote productive result and an overall positive emotional disposition to the task list (SIM: see ¶ 0002, 0004).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Beauchamp/SIM further disclose: wherein task information is displayed in the task sub-interface, the task information comprising objective task information and/or sub-task information, and the objective task information having an association relationship with the sub-task information (Beauchamp: Col. 12, line 58 through Col. 13, line 35; individual units of work may be selected from the graphical user interface to take the user to a work unit page for an individual unit of work. See Col. 3, line 67 through Col. 4, line 15; Individual units of work may include one or more of an individual task, and individual sub-task, and/or other units of work assigned to and/or associated with one or more users. SIM: see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0037; the “Task A” may indicate that there are three subtasks “3” and may display the three subtasks upon a user selection or other machine action; A user may further select a first subtask, such as “Task_A_1” and information about “Task_A_1” may be provided in the task information area 512). Thus, combining Beauchamp and SIM would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Beauchamp/SIM further disclose: wherein the task information comprises a first user identification (Beauchamp: See Col. 3, line 67 through Col. 4, line 15; a given unit of work may have one or more assignees and/or collaborators working on the given work unit).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Beauchamp/SIM further disclose: wherein the first control is displayed in a predetermined region of the task interface, and the first control is associated with the objective task information of the first user (Beauchamp: Col. 12, line 58 through Col. 13, line 35; the values of a supporting parameter may be visually represented as a list of unit of work that support a project; the individual units of work may be visually represented by values of work unit parameter including, but not limited to, title, ..SIM: see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0037; a user interface having a list of controls corresponding to a list of tasks; the list of tasks). Thus, combining Beauchamp and SIM would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Beauchamp/SIM further disclose: wherein the first control uniquely corresponds to the objective task information of the first user (SIM: see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0037; a user interface having a list of controls corresponding to a list of tasks; the list of tasks; i.e., “Task A”). Thus, combining Beauchamp and SIM would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Beauchamp/SIM further disclose:
in response to receiving an association request related to the objective task information, the objective task information is displayed in the task sub-interface (Beauchamp: see Col. 2, lines 22-27; the dynamically update the information defining the project-level graphical user interfaces of the collaboration environment as the values of the one or more of the project parameters of the individual projects change and/or updated within the collaboration environment. See Col. 1, lines 24-41; generate project-level graphical user interfaces within a collaboration environment); or,
in response to receiving an association request related to the sub-task information, the sub-task information is displayed in the task sub-interface, and the objective task information having the association relationship with the sub-task information is displayed (examiner’s note: this limitation is directed to alternative elected embodiment. Nonetheless, Sim is relied upon for teaching the limitation: see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0037; the “Task A” may indicate that there are three subtasks “3” and may display the three subtasks upon a user selection or other machine action; A user may further select a first subtask, such as “Task_A_1” and information about “Task_A_1” may be provided in the task information area 512). Thus, combining Beauchamp and SIM would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Beauchamp/SIM further disclose: wherein a second control corresponding to the task information is further displayed in the task sub-interface (SIM: see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0037; A user may further select a first subtask, such as “Task_A_1” and information about “Task_A_1” may be provided in the task information area 512). Thus, combining Beauchamp and SIM would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Beauchamp/SIM further disclose:
in response to receiving an association request related to the objective task information, displaying the second control in an association region of the objective task information in the task sub- interface (Beauchamp: see Col. 2, lines 22-27; the dynamically update the information defining the project-level graphical user interfaces of the collaboration environment as the values of the one or more of the project parameters of the individual projects change and/or updated within the collaboration environment. See Col. 1, lines 24-41; generate project-level graphical user interfaces within a collaboration environment); or
in response to receiving an association request related to the sub-task information, determining the objective task information having the association relationship with the sub-task information, and displaying the second control in the association region of the objective task information of the task sub- interface (examiner’s note: this limitation is directed to alternative elected embodiment. Nonetheless, Sim is relied upon for teaching the limitation: see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0037; the “Task A” may indicate that there are three subtasks “3” and may display the three subtasks upon a user selection or other machine action; A user may further select a first subtask, such as “Task_A_1” and information about “Task_A_1” may be provided in the task information area 512). Thus, combining Beauchamp and SIM would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Beauchamp/SIM further disclose: wherein in response to a second predetermined operation on the second control, displaying the task information in the task sub-interface is terminated (SIM: see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0037; A user may further select a first subtask, such as “Task_A_1” and information about “Task_A_1” may be provided in the task information area 512). Thus, combining Beauchamp and SIM would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Beauchamp/SIM further disclose: wherein a third control corresponding to the second user is displayed in the task sub-interface (SIM: see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0037; i.e., A user may further select a first subtask, such as “Task_A_2”). Thus, combining Beauchamp and SIM would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Beauchamp/SIM further disclose: wherein in response to a third predetermined operation on the third control, displaying the task information of the second user in the task sub-interface is terminated (SIM: see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0037; i.e., A user may further select a first subtask, such as “Task_A_2” and information about “Task_A_2” may be provided in the task information area 512). Thus, combining Beauchamp and SIM would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Beauchamp/SIM further disclose: wherein predetermined information corresponding to the number of pieces of task information displayed in the task sub-interface is further displayed near the first control (SIM: see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0037). Thus, combining Beauchamp and SIM would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Beauchamp/SIM further disclose: wherein the task information comprises objective task information and/or sub-task information, the objective task information having an association relationship with the sub-task information; the method further comprises: determining whether the objective task information and sub-task information contain an association request; determining the predetermined information based on the number of pieces of the objective task information containing the association request; or, determining the predetermined information based on the number of pieces of objective task information associated with the sub-task information containing the association request (Beauchamp: Col. 12, line 58 through Col. 13, line 35; individual units of work may be selected from the graphical user interface to take the user to a work unit page for an individual unit of work. See Col. 3, line 67 through Col. 4, line 46; Individual units of work may include one or more of an individual tasks, and individual sub-task, and/or other units of work assigned to and/or associated with one or more users.. relationship between work unit records).
As to claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Beauchamp/SIM further disclose: wherein when the task information is not contained in the task sub-interface, the task sub-interface is closed, and the first control is not displayed in the task interface (SIM: see Fig. 5 and ¶ 0037; i.e., task indicates how man subtasks it has; therefore, the user can’t expand the task to reveal the sub-task lists {~the task is not selectable or the first control is not displayed}). Thus, combining Beauchamp and SIM would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Beauchamp/SIM further disclose: in response to the first user having a permission to the task information, displaying the first control in the task interface of the first user (Beauchamp: see Col. 4, lines 47-67; permission for who may make comments, such as an assignee, and assignor, a recipient, one or more followers).
As to claim 18, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Beauchamp/SIM further disclose: in response to the first user having a permission to the task information, displaying the task information in the task sub-interface (Beauchamp: see Col. 4, lines 47-67; permission for who may make comments, such as an assignee, and assignor, a recipient, one or more followers).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauchamp/SIM in view of QIU et al. (US 2019/0288965 A1; hereinafter as QUI).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Beauchamp/SIM further disclose: wherein the task information comprises objective task information and/or sub-task information (Beauchamp: See Col. 3, line 67 through Col. 4, line 15; Individual units of work may include one or more of an individual tasks, and individual sub-task, and/or other units of work assigned to and/or associated with one or more users).
Beauchamp/SIM do not teach, but QUI is relied upon for teaching the limitation: in response to the task information of the second user having been associated with a first objective task information of the first user, forgoing displaying the task information of the second user in task sub- interface corresponding to the first objective task information (see Fig. 6-1B and ¶ 0080-0081; if the individual task button 14 is selected, the information on the task which the user himself or herself (the user A in this case) is in charge of is displayed with respect to the selected topic).
The references, each is directed to a task user interface; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the task user interface disclosed in Beauchamp/SIM to include the specific feature of displaying tasks related to a selected user as taught by QUI to achieve the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter and the advantages provided by QUI that providing the task user interface would allow the user to easily identify the task of interest (QUI: see ¶ 0080-0081).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Beauchamp/SIM/QUI further disclose: determining second objective task information of the first user that is unassociated with the task information of the second user, and displaying the task information of the second user in task sub- interface corresponding to the second objective task information (QUI: see Fig. 6-2A and ¶ 0084; If the all-member task button 15 is selected, information on the tasks of all members is displayed with respect to the selected topic). Thus, combining Beauchamp/SIM/QUI would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYETLIEN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1033. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 8:00 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, Irete (Fred) Ehichioya can be reached on 571-272-4034. 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.
/TUYETLIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179