DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/14/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 17-19 have been amended. Claims 12 and 13 have been canceled. Claims 1-8, 11 and 14-19 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, 11 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, apparatus claims 1-8, 11 and 14-16 are directed to processing circuitry, system claims 17 and 18 are directed to an information processing apparatus and a terminal apparatus, and processing circuitry, respectively, and method claim 19 is directed to a series of steps. Thus the claims are directed to a machine and process, respectively.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite task arrangement, including receiving, acquiring, dividing, arranging, changing, transmitting, displaying, determining, calculating, and generating steps.
The limitations of receiving, acquiring, dividing, arranging, changing, transmitting, displaying, determining, calculating, and generating, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite receive task information of a new task input through the terminal apparatus, the task information including a subject of the new task, an estimated time to work the new task, and a preset time unit by which the new task is divided; in response to receiving the task information of the new task from the terminal apparatus, acquire a registered task arranged in a schedule; divide the new task into a plurality of divisional tasks by the preset time unit, each divisional task representing part of the new task and being individually arranged in the schedule; automatically arrange the divisional tasks of the new task in the schedule in an interrupting manner by arranging the divisional tasks in time slots of the schedule in which the registered task is arranged; change an arrangement of the registered task, based on the automatically arranged divisional tasks of the new task, and thereby generate a rearranged schedule; transmit screen data of the rearranged schedule to the terminal apparatus, the screen data of the rearranged schedule including the automatically arranged divisional tasks displayed with the subject of the new task; transmit screen data for displaying a progress input screen, the progress input screen including a progress percentage input field for the registered task, the progress percentage input field including a first indicator indicating a scheduled progress percentage calculated based on an estimated time to work the registered task and an already spent time of the registered task, and a second indicator operable by a user relative to the first indicator to input an input progress percentage of the registered task; receive the input progress percentage input by the user through the second indicator on the progress input screen; determine whether a progress of the registered task is delayed, by comparing the received input progress percentage with the calculated scheduled progress percentage; and in response to determining that the progress of the registered task is delayed, calculate an additional time corresponding to a gap between the input progress percentage and the calculated scheduled progress percentage, generate an additional task having the calculated additional time, and automatically arrange the generated additional task in the schedule.
That is, other than reciting processing circuitry connected with a terminal apparatus via a network, the claim limitations merely cover managing interactions between people, following rules or instructions, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include processing circuitry connected with a terminal apparatus via a network. The processing circuitry connected with a terminal apparatus via a network in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of processing circuitry connected with a terminal apparatus via a network amounts 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.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-8 further describe changing the arrangement of the registered task and arranging the divisional tasks of the new task. Claim 11 recites an additional receiving step. Claims 14-16 recite additional issuing steps. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, processing circuitry connected with a terminal apparatus via a network.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed on page 5 of the specification, “The task management apparatus 10 and the user terminals 20 according to the present embodiment may each be implemented, for example, by a computer. FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a hardware configuration of the computer according to the present embodiment. As illustrated in FIG. 2, the computer according to the present embodiment includes a central processing unit (CPU) 501, a read-only memory (ROM) 502, a random access memory (RAM) 503, a hard disk (HD) 504, a hard disk drive (HDD) controller 505, a display 506, an external device connection interface (I/F) 508, a network I/F 509, a bus line 510, a keyboard 511, a pointing device 512, a digital versatile disk rewritable (DVD-RW) drive 514, and a medium I/F 516.”
Moreover, as discussed on page 4 of the specification, “An example of the task management apparatus 10 and the user terminals 20 is computers. The user terminals 20 are not limited to computers and may be any apparatuses having a communication function. The user terminals 20 may be, for example, an image forming apparatus (a printer, a facsimile machine, a multifunction peripheral/product/printer (MFP), or a scanner), a projector (PJ), an interactive whiteboard (IWB) having an electronic whiteboard function with interactive communication, an output device such as a digital signage, a head-up display (HUD), an industrial machine, an image-capturing device, a sound-collecting device, a medical equipment, a network-connected home appliance, an automobile (connected car), a notebook personal computer (PC), a mobile phone, a smart phone, a tablet terminal, a gaming machine, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a digital camera, a wearable PC, or a desktop PC.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant argues that amended claim 1 does not merely organize human activity or arrange schedule items at a conceptual level. Instead, amended claim 1 recites a specific, computer-implemented interactive graphical interface and automated schedule optimization process. The interaction between the graphical interface (the relative dual indicators) and the underlying automated scheduling algorithm represents a concrete, machine-automated task/schedule management framework, going beyond the mere abstract idea.
Even assuming arguendo that the claim involves an abstract idea, the amended claim recites additional elements integrated into a practical application, consistent with the 2019 USPTO Guidance ("2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Under the 2019 USPTO Guidance, amended claim 1 is patent-eligible because it integrates specific features into a practical application and provides a technical improvement to computer functionality, particularly in the field of Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) and user-computer interactions.
Specifically, as described in the specification (e.g., page 18, lines 4-5), an effect of the present invention is to enable a user to appropriately input and manage tasks through a simple operation. To achieve this technical effect, the claimed invention as amended involves a specific, interactive GUI and automated control mechanism: (1) a specialized GUI layout including a progress percentage input field configured with a first indicator (indicating a calculated scheduled progress percentage) and a second indicator (operable by a user relative to the first indicator); and (2) automated circuitry processing that compares the input from the second indicator against the calculated first indicator to identify progress delay, calculates an additional time corresponding to the gap, generates a new compensatory "additional task," and automatically arranges the generated additional task in the schedule.
This unique combination of GUI elements and automated calculations directly
improves the user interface functionality and user operation efficiency. Rather than reciting a generic computer performing conventional human activity, the claimed invention provides a concrete technological improvement in GUI-based task management-allowing users to visually perceive progress gaps via interactive indicators and automatically reflecting calculated delay adjustments into the machine-generated schedule. Such improvements in user interface design, user operability, and efficient information presentation/input constitute a recognized "improvement to computer functionality" (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Therefore, claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract concept into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As set forth below, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the technical
combination of features recited in claim 1. The specific combination of elements, including receiving an input progress percentage via a relative dual-indicator layout (first indicator and second indicator), calculating an additional time based on a delay gap, generating and arranging an additional task, is non-conventional and technologically distinctive in the art. The claim therefore recites "significantly more" than an abstract idea and is patent-eligible under Step 2B. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As recited on page 3 of the specification, “In the technique of the related art, changing the schedule of the registered task is not considered. For example, even if a new task with a higher priority occurs, the new task is not arranged before a registered task with a lower priority in some cases. In view of this, a technique for recommending the user with a schedule of tasks that the user can work efficiently is described below. The management assistance service in the present embodiment has a function of automatically arranging a task input by a user in a schedule and optimizing arrangement of tasks in accordance with registration of a new task or the progress of the registered task.”
Additionally, page 4 of the specification recites that “The task management apparatus 10 is an information processing apparatus that provides the management assistance service to the user terminals 20 via the communication network N1. The task management apparatus 10 may be implemented by a single information processing apparatus, or may be a system implemented by a plurality of information processing apparatuses. The user terminals 20 are information processing apparatuses to be operated by the users of the information processing system 1. The users of the information processing system 1 use the user terminals 20 to use the management assistance service provided by the task management apparatus 10.”
Moreover, the amended claim language recites “receive task information of a new task input through the terminal apparatus, the task information including a subject of the new task, an estimated time to work the new task, and a preset time unit by which the new task is divided; in response to receiving the task information of the new task from the terminal apparatus, acquire a registered task arranged in a schedule; divide the new task into a plurality of divisional tasks by the preset time unit, each divisional task representing part of the new task and being individually arranged in the schedule; automatically arrange the divisional tasks of the new task in the schedule in an interrupting manner by arranging the divisional tasks in time slots of the schedule in which the registered task is arranged; change an arrangement of the registered task, based on the automatically arranged divisional tasks of the new task, and thereby generate a rearranged schedule; and transmit screen data of the rearranged schedule…;…the progress percentage input field including a first indicator indicating a scheduled progress percentage calculated based on an estimated time to work the registered task and an already spent time of the registered task, and a second indicator operable by a user relative to the first indicator to input an input progress percentage of the registered task;…and in response to determining that the progress of the registered task is delayed, calculate an additional time corresponding to a gap between the input progress percentage and the calculated scheduled progress percentage, generate an additional task having the calculated additional time, and automatically arrange the generated additional task in the schedule.”
Following, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claim limitations merely cover managing interactions between people, following rules or instructions, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, there is no improvement to the user interface functionality and user operation efficiency. Here, the claims merely describe an “input field for the registered task” and “receiv[ing] the input progress percentage input by the user”. The claimed input field and receiving input does not seem to involve anything other than the application of a known interface technique in its normal, routine, and ordinary capacity. Following, here the simple input does not improve the user interface.
Moreover, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the automated calculations, based on the user input, fail to improve the user interface functionality and user operation efficiency. Rather, as Applicant is likely aware, a simple calculation (i.e., calculate an additional time corresponding to a gap between the input progress percentage and the calculated scheduled progress percentage) based upon user input does not involve anything other than the application of a known input/calculation technique in its normal, routine, and ordinary capacity.
Additionally, under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Besides the abstract idea, the claims include processing circuitry connected with a terminal apparatus via a network.
The processing circuitry connected with a terminal apparatus via a network in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use computer components as a tool (i.e., processing circuitry connected with a terminal apparatus via a network). There is no change to the computers and/or other technology recited in the claims, thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Applicant also argues that Jardine et al does not teach or suggest, amended claim 1, including (A) divide the new task into a plurality of divisional tasks by the preset time unit, each divisional task representing part of the new task and being individually arranged in the schedule; and (B) automatically arrange the divisional tasks of the new task in the schedule in an interrupting manner by arranging the divisional tasks in time slots of the schedule in which the registered task is arranged…change an arrangement of the registered task, based on the automatically arranged divisional tasks of the new task, and thereby generate a rearranged schedule.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Jardine et al, in view of Shenk et al, indeed disclose Applicant’s amended claim language, as discussed in the updated rejection.
Conclusion
With respect to independent claims 1, 17, 18 and 19, none of the prior art of record, taken individually or in any combination, teach inter alia, “…the progress input screen including a progress percentage input field for the registered task, the progress percentage input field including a first indicator indicating a scheduled progress percentage calculated based on an estimated time to work the registered task and an already spent time of the registered task, and a second indicator operable by a user relative to the first indicator to input an input progress percentage of the registered task; receive the input progress percentage input by the user through the second indicator on the progress input screen; determine whether a progress of the registered task is delayed, by comparing the received input progress percentage with the calculated scheduled progress percentage; and in response to determining that the progress of the registered task is delayed, calculate an additional time corresponding to a gap between the input progress percentage and the calculated scheduled progress percentage, generate an additional task having the calculated additional time, and automatically arrange the generated additional task in the schedule.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 September 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights