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 19 March 2026 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amended claims are not abstract because they require a client to perform the displaying steps on a GUI and receiving step on the input device. The MPEP and courts are clear that requiring use of a computer to perform method steps does not automatically transform an abstract idea into a non-abstract, eligible idea, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) ““[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.” Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").” Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application on pages 8-9 of the Remarks, specifically that the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea because the present application displays multiple project templates on the GUI, receives the selection, and displays a preview. The Examiner does not agree because none of these reasons are similar to reasoning presented in the MPEP 2106.05(a), (b), (c) or (e) and are instead more similar to using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(a) similar to arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface and remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Applicant's arguments filed 19 March 2026 with respect to the 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has presented claim amendments that require new grounds of rejection which are presented below.
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 receiving a selection operation, in a first period, in response to an editing operation by a first user having a first permission, creating a project and determining at least one indicator item of the 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 first field, and the data processing rule is used for determining a data processing result of the indicator item based on information filled in the first field; in a second period, acquiring information filled in the first field by a second user having a second permission; and determining a data processing result of the indicator item for the second user based on the 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, an input device, 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)). The limitations of displaying a plurality of project templates on a GUI and displaying a preview interface of a selected project template wherein the preview interface displays at least on indicator item of the selected project template and at least one indicator field of each indicator item are instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and also considered extra solution activity similar to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). 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. The limitations of displaying a plurality of project templates on a GUI and displaying a preview interface of a selected project template wherein the preview interface displays at least on indicator item of the selected project template and at least one indicator field of each indicator item are instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and also considered extra solution activity similar to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). 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 plurality of project templates] on a graphical user-interface(Fig 4 ‘450’ graphical flow charts, [0034], Figs 5A&B), receiving a selection operation form an input device (¶ [0046], Fig 5B), and in a first period, in response to an editing operation by a first user having a first permission, creating a project and determining at least one indicator item of the 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 first field, and the data processing rule is used for determining a data processing result of the indicator item based on information filled in the first field (Figs 5A&5B, ¶¶ [0039]-[0047]);
in a second period, acquiring information filled in the first field 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 information and the data processing rule (Fig 5B, [0046], [0081]-[0083], see also Fig 12).
GUO fails to explicitly disclose but Mann does disclose a plurality of project templates (¶¶ [0241] “if the change to the original customized template 340 included removing column 345, the updated customized template would then also remove the column in any user device containing the original customized template 340 to result in the updated customized template 3410. In yet another example, any changes to the original customized template 340 may result in displaying the updated customized template 3410 on a user device 220 containing the customized template so that the user may see a preview of the updated customized template and how it may alter or tailor the user's data or current customized template. In this way, the user may decide whether to accept or reject the updated customized template based on the preview”, [0244]-0249], Fig 4). displaying a preview interface of a selected project template, wherein the preview interface displays at least one indicator item of the selected project template and at least one indicator field of each indicator item (¶¶ [0241], [0244]-0249], Fig 4, see also [0481]-[0484]) 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, templates are not a uniquely digital idea, but a concept that has been in practice for hundreds of years since printing became widespread and the use of forms in a digital environment would yield predictable results. Templates for digital applications such as Microsoft Word have been in use for 20 years and Microsoft Excel since 1987 which in turn has caused the use of templates in all sorts of digital applications and software. Guo also discloses the use of templates for the graphic flow charts in [0034] as well as in at least [0056] and Fig 7 using templates for task graphic flow charts.
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 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 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 information filled in the first 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 information and the data processing rule, comprises: determining the data processing result of the indicator item for the second user based on 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 first field comprises a first 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 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 information in the first field, or a process node for a third user having a third permission to update the information filled in the first 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Muller US 2014/0236885 Liersch US 12347331 Noland US 2017/0132200
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
Prosecution Insights