DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception under the subject matter eligibility two-part statutory analysis, as provided below.
Regarding Step 1,
Step 1 addresses whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter according to MPEP §2106.03. Claims 1-20 all fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. Independent claim 1, also representative of independent claims 6 and 15 for the same abstract features, is underlined below which recite the following claim limitations, as an abstract idea.
Claims 1 & 6 and 15 comprising:
perform automated project and task management across one or more impacted nodes, wherein the method comprises: generating, by a management application at a management system in the communication network, a parent record in association with a project and a plurality of impacted nodes (data records) that are used to perform the project, wherein the parent record comprises links to one or more child records associated with the project; generating, by the management application, an internal child record in association with the project and a first impacted node, wherein the internal child record comprises data describing a first task to be performed using the first impacted node and a first link to the parent record; generating, by the management application, an external child record in association with an external project and a second impacted node (data record), wherein the external child record comprises data describing a second task to be performed using the second impacted node for the external project and a second link to the parent record; detecting, by the management application, an update to at least one of the internal child record or the external child record; updating, by the management application, the parent record based on the update to the at least one of the internal child record or the external child record; and generating, by a service management application at the management system, a test child record in association with the project and a test node, wherein the test child record comprises data describing a test to be performed using the test node for the project and a third link to the parent record.
[claims 1 and 6] determining that performance of the first task for the project using the first impacted node (data record) impacts a value computed for an external project at a second impacted (data record); wherein the second task comprises a corrective operation to prevent or correct a computational impact caused by performance of the first task, wherein the corrective operation comprises at least one of a reverse task operation that adjusts the value associated with the second impacted node that is changed by performing the first task;
[claim 15] generate an internal child record in association with the project and a first impacted node, wherein the internal child record comprises data describing a first task to be performed using the first impacted node (data record) and a first link to the parent record; determine that performance of the first task for the project using the first impacted node impacts a value computed for an external project at a second impacted node; generate an external [[a]] child record in association with the project or an external project and the second impacted node, wherein the external child record comprises data describing a second task to be performed using the second impacted node for the external project and a first second link to the parent record, wherein the second task comprises a corrective operation to prevent or correct a computational impact caused by performance of the first task, wherein the corrective operation comprises at least a reverse task operation that adjusts the value associated with the second impacted node that is changed by performing the first task;
The underlined claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas, and includes at least managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for managing personal behavior/relationships or interactions between people because the claimed steps recite designing an workflow using rules and graphical elements proposed in the rule workflow and manage collaboration. Accordingly, since the claimed invention describes a process that falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application according to MPEP §2106.04(d). The claims 1, 12 and 16 include the following additional elements:
A system, processor, non-transitory memory, a communication network, a management application at a management system in the communication network;
a first, second link and third link to the parent record;
a service management application at the management system;
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components for managing hierarchical parent-child relationship dependency relational data records. There is no improvement to database management technology at all.
The claimed invention merely provides an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with generic computer processes and components recited at a high-level of generality using computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely “apply it” without any meaningful technological limits or any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into any practical application since they do not impose any non-generic meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B,
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05.
As discussed above, the claimed additional elements recited above amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” using generic computer components and functionality. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components are insufficient to provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the claimed additional elements merely limit the abstract idea to be executed in a computer environment, thus do nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements are claimed at a high-level of generality and add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the claimed limitations is equally generic and otherwise held to be abstract since the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components operating in their ordinary and generic capacities of what is typically expected of computers storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data between generic computer devices. The claimed invention is not patent eligible because the additional elements are merely invoked as tools to execute the abstract idea and thus are insufficient to amount to an inventive concept significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for dependent claims, they merely further narrow and reiterate the same abstract ideas for storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data using generic data storage and transmittal techniques with the same additional elements as recited above which provide nothing more than applying the abstract idea using generic computer technology components. Furthermore dependent claims comprise the following additional elements:
a service management application at the management system
These additional elements do not provide any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and at best simply applying the abstract idea executed in a general-purpose computer environment. Therefore the dependent claims are also directed to ineligible subject matter since they do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, after considering all claim elements in Claims 1-20 both individually and as an ordered combination, it has been determined that the claimed invention as a whole, is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since nothing in the claim limitations provide significantly more than the abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The arguments and amendment has been considered however is deemed unpersuasive and fails to overcome the claim rejections.
The claimed invention merely provides an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with generic computer processes and components recited at a high-level of generality using computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely “apply it” without any meaningful technological limits or any improvement to technology or database management technical solutions being solved other than parent-child relational hierarchical data management of records, neither does it improve any technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. The claims do not differentiate what a node cannot include and under BRI a node is a data record associated with a computer generically.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)270-5066. Examiner interviews are available using the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. For sending Interview agendas, the Examiner’s direct fax number is (571) 270-6066.
For filing Authorization for Internet Communication, please see https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf. If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Lynda Jasmin, can be reached at (571) 272-6782.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information about the USPTO Patent Center, please access https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ The USPTO Electronic Business Center can be contacted for questions regarding the Patent Center by calling 1-866-217-9197.
/Laura Yesildag/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights