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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/01/2026 was filed before the mailing of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 129 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Claims Recite A Judicial Exception Under Step 2A Prong One
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity nor mental processes. Examiner disagrees.
Step 2A Prong One of the Alice/Mayo framework evaluates whether an abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. The Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Here, it is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. Applicant’s specification recites:
[0001] Various methods, apparatuses, and systems provide tools allowing users to plan, coordinate, collaborate, track, monitor, execute, address, resolve, and/or otherwise manage multiple resources, projects, and work in resource operation management and collaboration systems. Applicant has identified a number of deficiencies and problems associated with effectively and reliably surfacing metrics and other relevant data for managing, monitoring, and understanding status and progress associated with such resources, projects, and work in existing resource operation management and collaboration systems, especially with respect to higher-level goals, plans, objectives, milestones, and initiatives when scaling to the enterprise level of an organization, as such resources, projects, and work are based on a variety of underlying disparate assumptions, considerations, and data sets. Through applied effort, ingenuity, and innovation, many of these identified deficiencies and problems have been solved by developing solutions that are structured in accordance with the embodiments of the present disclosure, many examples of which are described in detail herein.
[0032] Methods, apparatuses, systems, and computer program products are provided in accordance with example embodiments of the present disclosure in order to address technical problems associated with generating and outputting a resource container unit aggregation insight interface component to a resource operational interface, for example, in a resource operation management and collaboration system. A resource operation management and collaboration system enables users to plan, track, organize, schedule, monitor, and/or otherwise manage resources, work items, development projects, and the like. Such a resource operation management and collaboration system may require the management and oversight of, for example, a plurality of agile and non-agile systems. For example, software development projects may be based in an agile project management framework, while HR information and financial planning associated with such software development may be based in non-agile frameworks or otherwise cannot be efficiently interconnected with such agile project management frameworks. In addition, such resources, processes, work, and information may typically be housed in different tools altogether and/or owned by different departments/teams in an organization.
[0033] The inventors have determined it would be desirable and advantageous to be able to effectively and reliably surface metrics and other relevant data for managing, monitoring, and understanding status and progress associated with resources, projects, work, and information developed using or originating from, for example, such agile and non-agile frameworks. Such resources, projects, and work, however, are based on a variety of underlying disparate assumptions, considerations, and data sets. For example, an agile software development project may be broken down in a hierarchical manner to smaller actionable work items that can be assigned to self-organizing and cross-functional teams in a series of iterations. Such a de-centralized environment allows for continuous evaluation and improved response to unanticipated changes experienced during the software development project as compared to linear project management, however, the resulting iterative outputs, products, and data resulting from the flexible nature of agile project management are complex as they often are not linear, consistent, or homogenous. Indeed, such data structures produced from an agile project management framework can be dissimilar across teams, scrums, sprints, and projects. Moreover, financial planning associated with such software development is often linear and may span long periods of time, which is inefficient and counter-intuitive to the underlying purpose and adaptability of agile project management. In addition, human resources information, such as team memberships and reporting lines, is not often compatible with such agile project management. Many technical challenges may be encountered in efficiently connecting such financial information and/or HR information with such disparate data from the agile project management frameworks and surfacing relevant information to users. In addition, not only is such information dissimilar, but typically housed in different tools altogether and owned by different departments/teams in the organization. Such difficulties are only exacerbated with respect to higher-level goals, plans, objectives, milestones, and initiatives when scaling to the enterprise level of an organization.
The cited portions of the specification are highlighted to show that the claimed invention is drawn towards a resource operation management and collaboration enabling users to plan, track, organize, schedule, monitor, and management resources, work items, and development projects in order to effectively surface metrics and other relevant data for managing, monitoring, and understanding status and progress associated with resources, projects, work, and information. The claims recite limitations that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (business relations, managing personal interactions, etc.) as evidenced by limitations detailing detect a resource container unit aggregation insight map interface request in response to user interaction with a [resource operational interface]; traverse an aggregation of a plurality of resource container units and disparate data sets originating from different ones of a plurality of disparate tools based on the resource container unit aggregation insight map interface request, the disparate data sets having data structures that are dissimilar from one another and each disparate data set being associated with at least one resource container unit; generate an inferred linkage between a first resource container unit and a second resource container unit by identifying one or more patterns across the disparate data sets originating from at least two of the plurality of disparate tools, wherein the inferred linkage defines a relationship derived from the one or more patterns identified in the traversal of the aggregation; generate a [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] comprising a plurality of resource container unit interface components based on the traversal of the aggregation and the inferred linkage, the [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] configured to visually depict at least two of the resource container unit interface components in a hierarchical mapping arrangement; causing display of a visual linkage element between the first and second resource container unit interface components to visually depict the hierarchical mapping arrangement as a parent-child hierarchical mapping arrangement; and output the [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] for rendering to the [resource operational interface], wherein the [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] provides real-time or near real-time visualization of at least the inferred linkage and relationships derived from disparate tools. The claims also recite limitations the correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing detect a resource container unit aggregation insight map interface request in response to user interaction with a [resource operational interface]; generate an inferred linkage between a first resource container unit and a second resource container unit by identifying one or more patterns across the disparate data sets originating from at least two of the plurality of disparate tools, wherein the inferred linkage defines a relationship derived from the one or more patterns identified in the traversal of the aggregation; generate a [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] comprising a plurality of resource container unit interface components based on the traversal of the aggregation and the inferred linkage, the [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] configured to visually depict at least two of the resource container unit interface components in a hierarchical mapping arrangement; identifying a first resource container unit interface component as a parent resource container unit interface component based on the inferred linkage, wherein the first resource container unit interface component corresponds to the first resource container unit; identifying a second resource container unit interface component as a child resource container unit interface component to the first resource container unit interface component based on the inferred linkage, wherein the second resource container unit interface component corresponds to the second resource container unit; and causing display of a visual linkage element between the first and second resource container unit interface components to visually depict the hierarchical mapping arrangement as a parent-child hierarchical mapping arrangement. The claims considered in light of the specification, indicate that their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter. The claim limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity being implemented via computer does not take the claims out of the judicial exception grouping. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II) provides that, regarding certain methods of organizing human activity, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. Additionally, regarding mental processes, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III) provides that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. If the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
Applicant’s argument that the claims cannot be practically formed in the human mind is unpersuasive. The mental-steps inquiry under Step 2A Prong One is not “could a human do this at the same speed/precision.” It’s whether the claim limitation, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) is explicit that a claim can recite a mental process even though it is performed with the assistance of a computer. The question is the underlying nature of the step, not whether a human could literally replicate the computer’s exact arithmetic or functionality that is unique to computer processing.
For the reasons set forth above, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
The Judicial Exception Is Not Integrated Into A Practical Application Under Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner disagrees.
The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: (see MPEP §2106.04(d))
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use;
In the applicant’s claimed invention, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a resource container unit aggregation insight map interface, a resource operational interface, at least one processor (claim 1), at least one memory (claim 1), and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 19). The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include (not limited to):
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field
Applicant’s argument that the specification confirms that the claims address a technological problem arising from structurally incompatible data maintained across different enterprise systems is unpersuasive. The specification instead confirms that the claims address, at best, an issue related to the judicial exception itself and not a technical improvement in computers or technology. Reconciling and analyzing heterogenous enterprise data to generate relationships does not improve computers or technology. At best the alleged improvement is an improvement in the judicial exception itself. No evidence or support is present in the specification, claims, nor applicant’s arguments indicating an improvement to computer functionality, nor an improvement in technology. For instance, the computer functionality or operations do not change and are not improved (e.g., the computer does not run or process faster, nor provide improvements to bandwidth, etc.). The business process is merely implemented on the computer, which is an improvement in the business process at best. All arguments are related to an improvement in a business process/steps and the judicial exceptions (business relations, managing personal interactions, and analyzing data). It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05(a). It is also important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology (emphasis added). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology. Technical improvement focuses on enhancing the tools, software, or machinery, while business process improvement focuses on streamlining the steps, workflows, and methodologies people use to do their work. The claims viewed in light of the specification indicates that the applicant’s claims and claimed invention fall in the latter.
For the reasons set forth above, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
The Claims Do Not Include Additional Elements That Are Sufficient To Amount To Significantly More Than The Judicial Exception Under Step 2B
Applicant argues that the claims include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner disagrees.
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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant argues that their claims are not well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Applicant is reminded that, under step 2B, whether the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is only one consideration under Step 2B. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception also include: (see MPEP §2106.05)
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use;
Thus, since the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept.
For the reasons set forth above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-10 recite an apparatus (i.e. machine), claims 11-18 recite a method (i.e. process), and claims 19-20 recite a computer program product (i.e. article of manufacture). Therefore claims 1-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1, 11, 19 recite the limitations: detect a resource container unit aggregation insight map interface request in response to user interaction with a [resource operational interface]; traverse an aggregation of a plurality of resource container units and disparate data sets originating from different ones of a plurality of disparate tools based on the resource container unit aggregation insight map interface request, the disparate data sets having data structures that are dissimilar from one another and each disparate data set being associated with at least one resource container unit; generate an inferred linkage between a first resource container unit and a second resource container unit by identifying one or more patterns across the disparate data sets originating from at least two of the plurality of disparate tools, wherein the inferred linkage defines a relationship derived from the one or more patterns identified in the traversal of the aggregation; generate a [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] comprising a plurality of resource container unit interface components based on the traversal of the aggregation and the inferred linkage, the [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] configured to visually depict at least two of the resource container unit interface components in a hierarchical mapping arrangement, wherein visually depicting at least two of the resource container unit interface components in the hierarchical mapping arrangement comprises: identifying a first resource container unit interface component as a parent resource container unit interface component based on the inferred linkage, wherein the first resource container unit interface component corresponds to the first resource container unit; identifying a second resource container unit interface component as a child resource container unit interface component to the first resource container unit interface component based on the inferred linkage, wherein the second resource container unit interface component corresponds to the second resource container unit; and causing display of a visual linkage element between the first and second resource container unit interface components to visually depict the hierarchical mapping arrangement as a parent-child hierarchical mapping arrangement; and output the [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] for rendering to the [resource operational interface], wherein the [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] provides real-time or near real-time visualization of at least the inferred linkage and relationships derived from the plurality of disparate tools. The invention is drawn towards a resource operation management and collaboration enabling users to plan, track, organize, schedule, monitor, and management resources, work items, and development projects, and recites limitations that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (business relations, managing personal interactions, etc.) as evidenced by limitations detailing detect a resource container unit aggregation insight map interface request in response to user interaction with a [resource operational interface]; traverse an aggregation of a plurality of resource container units and disparate data sets originating from different ones of a plurality of disparate tools based on the resource container unit aggregation insight map interface request, the disparate data sets having data structures that are dissimilar from one another and each disparate data set being associated with at least one resource container unit; generate an inferred linkage between a first resource container unit and a second resource container unit by identifying one or more patterns across the disparate data sets originating from at least two of the plurality of disparate tools, wherein the inferred linkage defines a relationship derived from the one or more patterns identified in the traversal of the aggregation; generate a [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] comprising a plurality of resource container unit interface components based on the traversal of the aggregation and the inferred linkage, the [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] configured to visually depict at least two of the resource container unit interface components in a hierarchical mapping arrangement; causing display of a visual linkage element between the first and second resource container unit interface components to visually depict the hierarchical mapping arrangement as a parent-child hierarchical mapping arrangement; and output the [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] for rendering to the [resource operational interface], wherein the [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] provides real-time or near real-time visualization of at least the inferred linkage and relationships derived from disparate tools. The claims also recite limitations the correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing detect a resource container unit aggregation insight map interface request in response to user interaction with a [resource operational interface]; generate an inferred linkage between a first resource container unit and a second resource container unit by identifying one or more patterns across the disparate data sets originating from at least two of the plurality of disparate tools, wherein the inferred linkage defines a relationship derived from the one or more patterns identified in the traversal of the aggregation; generate a [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] comprising a plurality of resource container unit interface components based on the traversal of the aggregation and the inferred linkage, the [resource container unit aggregation insight map interface] configured to visually depict at least two of the resource container unit interface components in a hierarchical mapping arrangement; identifying a first resource container unit interface component as a parent resource container unit interface component based on the inferred linkage, wherein the first resource container unit interface component corresponds to the first resource container unit; identifying a second resource container unit interface component as a child resource container unit interface component to the first resource container unit interface component based on the inferred linkage, wherein the second resource container unit interface component corresponds to the second resource container unit; and causing display of a visual linkage element between the first and second resource container unit interface components to visually depict the hierarchical mapping arrangement as a parent-child hierarchical mapping arrangement. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above in the Step 2A Prong One section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a resource container unit aggregation insight map interface, a resource operational interface, at least one processor (claim 1), at least one memory (claim 1), and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 19). The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes: Chhabra (US 11,616,787) which discloses a system that causes a resource accessible to a first set of entities to also be accessible to a member of a second set of entities. The system also creates a project to associate with a set of resources, associate a policy that controls access to the set of resources with the projects, associate the resource with the set of resources of the project, and associate the member of the second set of entities with the project. A request is obtained from the member of the second set of entities to access the resource and if determined to be authorized to access the resource based on the policy, the member of the second set of entities is allowed to obtain access to the resource. Plumb (2017/0289069) discloses a system with a plurality of container units, determining a selected resource unit from a set of units, and outputting the resource container unit aggregation insight map interface for rendering to the operational interface. Nixon (2018/0091516) discloses resource management system resource agents, each resource agent being a representation of at least an aspect of a resource, wherein at least one aspect of governance of each said resource agent is distributable by a first rights holder to any one or more second rights holder; and a communications interface for interfacing said platform and at least one resource-related computing device. The references do not appear to disclose the amended limitations of the applicant’s claims individually nor in combination. The claims appear to overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes the publication “A Virtual Workspace for Distributed Design and Engineering Tasks” (Benolken, et. al.; 2010) which describes a design and evaluation of a virtual workspace for supporting the collaboration of team members in geographically distributed locations. The publication explores efficient IT tools required for the synchronization and coordination between people for conducting collaborative tasks. The references do not appear to disclose the amended limitations of the applicant’s claims individually nor in combination. The claims appear to overcome the prior art.
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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
