Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 October 2025 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claims are not directed to an abstract idea on pages 8-9 of the Remarks, specifically that the claims cannot be performed in the human mind because they require a GUI and the claim as a whole integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner disagrees because the basis of the rejection is not based on a mental process but a method of organizing human activity… managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (managing project tasks and timelines between people is similar to managing personal interactions between people) such as following rules or instructions. Additionally, the GUI is being used as a tool to implement the abstract idea similar to MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 13 October 2025, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of 11 July 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 13 October 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and necessitated by amendment, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC 103 in view of Guo US 2010/0138268 in view of Mann US 2021/0149925.
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 1-8 and 17-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a “information processing method”.
Claim 1 is directed to the concept of “managing a project and updating project items” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (managing project tasks and timelines between people is similar to managing personal interactions between people) such as following rules or instructions)” in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Claim 1 recites in a first period, in response to an editing operation by a first user having a first permission, creating a target project and determining at least one indicator item of the target project and a data processing rule corresponding to the indicator item; wherein the indicator item comprises a plurality of indicator fields, the plurality of the indicator fields comprise a target field, and the data processing rule is used for determining a data processing result of the indicator item based on target information filled in the target field; in a second period, acquiring target information filled in the target field by a second user having a second permission, wherein the first permission and the second permission are different; and determining a data processing result of the indicator item for the second user based on the target information and the data processing rule. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claim such as a graphical user-interface, at least one memory, and at least one processor represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. implement) the acts of managing a project and updating project items.
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of managing a project and updating project items using computer technology (e.g. a graphical user-interface). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 2-8, 18-19, and 21-28 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 17-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo US 2010/0138268 in view of Mann US 2021/0149925.
As per claim 1:
GUO discloses an information processing method, comprising: displaying a graphical user-interface (Fig 4 ‘450’ graphical flow charts, [0034], Figs 5A&B); in a first period, in response to an editing operation on the graphical user-interface by a first user having a first permission, creating a target project and determining at least one indicator item of the target project and a data processing rule corresponding to the indicator item (Figs 5A&5B, ¶¶ [0039]-[0047]) ;
wherein the indicator item comprises a plurality of indicator fields, the plurality of the indicator fields comprise a target field, and the data processing rule is used for determining a data processing result of the indicator item based on target information filled in the target field (Figs 5A&5B, ¶¶ [0039]-[0047]);
in a second period, acquiring target information filled in the target field on the graphical user-interface by a second user having a second permission (Fig 5B, [0046], [0081]-[0083]); and
determining a data processing result of the indicator item for the second user based on the target information and the data processing rule (Fig 5B, [0046], [0081]-[0083], see also Fig 12).
GUO fails to explicitly disclose but Mann does disclose wherein the first
permission and the second permission are different (Figs 18 & 20-23, and at least [0353]-[0373] discloses that permissions can be set based on various options such as no restrictions, or can restrict permissions based on specific items in the GUI). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the features as taught in Mann in GUO since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely 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. Mann is in the art of collaborative work environments and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine the art of Mann and Guo to improve the access security to the GUI as well as maintaining the integrity of the work environment by maintaining proper access controls. Additionally, similar features of access control such as “read only” or permissions that enable edit/view/read only/comment have been available in software such as Microsoft Excel and Word for decades and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefit of using known access controls to a collaborative work environment.
As per claim 2:
GUO further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining a data processing rule corresponding to the indicator item, comprises: displaying at least one preset candidate data processing rule, and determining the data processing rule based on a candidate data processing rule selected by the first user; or determining the data processing rule based on a formula entered by a user in a preset formula editing interface (Figs 4, 5A, 5B, ¶ [0044], [0019], [0032], see also Figs 9&10 ¶¶ [0071]-[0075]).
As per claim 3:
GUO further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein, before the determining a data processing result of the indicator item for the second user based on the target information and the data processing rule, the information processing method further comprises: in response to an editing operation of a third user having a third permission, updating the target information filled in the target field by the second user (Fig 6, [0052], Fig 8 [0060]-[0061]) ; and the determining a data processing result of the indicator item for the second user based on the target information and the data processing rule, comprises: determining the data processing result of the indicator item for the second user based on target information after being updated and the data processing rule (Fig 6, [0052], Fig 7 [0060]-[0061]).
As per claim 4:
GUO further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the target field comprises a target value and an actual completion value corresponding to the indicator item (Figs 5A, 5B, 6, and 12; [0042], [0053], [0061]).
As per claim 5:
GUO further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to the editing operation of the first user, determining a filling rule corresponding to the indicator field; wherein the determining a filling rule corresponding to the indicator field, comprises: determining whether a content in the indicator field requires a confirmation by a user having a preset permission; and/or determining whether the content in the indicator field is allowed to be modified by the user having the preset permission (Fig 5B, [0046], [0081]).
As per claim 6:
GUO further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to the editing operation of the first user, determining a scope of the second user who participates in the target project (Figs 5A, 5B, 12; ¶¶ [0039]-[0047]).
As per claim 7:
GUO further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to the editing operation of the first user, determining a start time and an end time of a process node of the target project; wherein the process node comprises: a process node for the second user to fill in the target information in the target field, or a process node for a third user having a third permission to update the target information filled in the target field by the second user (Figs 5A&5B, ¶¶ [0039]-[0047], [0081]-[0083]).
As per claim 8:
GUO further discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising: sending a reminder notification to an associated person of the process node based on the start time of the process node (¶ [0074]).
As per claims 17-19 and 21-25:
Claims 17-19 and 21-25 are rejected under the rationales of claims 1-8,
respectively.
As per claims 20 and 26-28:
Claim 20 and 26-28 are rejected under the rationales of claims 1-4, respectively.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692