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 .
Application Status
This is a CON of 17/102,147 now US Patent 11,769,115.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-12, 15 and 17-20 are pending. They comprise of 2 independent groups:
(1) System1: 1-2, 5, 7-10, and
(2) Method1: 11-12, 15 and 17-20.
As of 02/18/2026, independent claim 1 is as followed:
1. (Previously Presented) A system configured to provide visual representation of user workload in a communication session, the system comprising:
[I] one or more physical processors; and
[II] a computer-readable medium storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more physical processors, cause the one or more physical processors to perform operations of:
[1] obtain content information characterizing content of a communication session between a first user and a second user of a collaboration environment, the communication session being conducted through instances of a graphical user interface,
the collaboration environment managing user records and work unit records, the user records describing users of the collaboration environment,
the work unit records describing units of work managed within the collaboration environment;
[2] identify, based on the content information, a potential unit of work and a third user as a potential assignee of the potential unit of work;
[3] generate a view of a workload display pane in a first instance of the graphical user interface of the communication session,
the workload display pane providing a visual representation of a workload of the third user, the workload of the third user being obtained from a user record associated with the third user, the workload display pane being presented alongside the content of the communication session, wherein the first instance of the graphical user interface includes a user interface element that, when selected, causes a work unit record for the potential unit of work to be generated; and
[4] in response to obtaining user input in the workload display pane conveying selection of the user interface element, generate the work unit record and automatically specify the third user as an assignee within the work unit record.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[4], are added to the beginning of each step.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-12, 15 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.11,769,115. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the results of steps [1]-[3] of current claim 1 of current application, “obtain information”, “identify potential units of work”, and “generate a view of workload display pane” read over the results of the steps [2], [4], [6] of claim 1 of US Patent 11,769,115 of “manage, obtain, identify potential units of work, identify potential assignees, obtain the user records, and generate views of a workload display pane in a GUI.” The teachings of the features in steps [1], [3] and [5] are inherently included in the teachings of steps [1]-[3] of current claim.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
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 1-2, 5, 7-12, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
1) law of nature,
2) natural phenomenon, and
3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(1) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
(3) Certain methods of organizing human activities.
(i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
(iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (1) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1-2, 5, 7-12, 15 and 17-20:
Claim categories:
Method1 (process): 11-12, 15 and 17-20, and
System1 (machine): 1-2, 5, and 7-10.
Analysis of Step 1:
Method: claims 11-12, 15 and 17-20 are directed to a process for displaying visual representation of user workload in a chat session on a graphical user interface (GUI). (Step 1:Yes).
Machine: claims 1-2, 5 and 7-10 are directed to a system comprising a processor, and memory having instructions for causing the system to carry out a series of steps or acts, for displaying visual representation of user workload in a chat session on a graphical user interface (GUI). (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims 1-2, 5, 7-12, 15 and 17-20 are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-12, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites a method for displaying visual representation of user workload in a chat session on a graphical user interface (GUI), is a fundamental economic principle or business practice for displaying assigned task/workload parameters on a display, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
Furthermore, independent claims 1, and 11 recite an abstract idea related to evaluation and displaying workload condition for various involved and assigned parties for effective display of team work), which constitutes an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for displaying visual representation of user workload in a chat session on a graphical user interface (GUI), by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] obtain content (data) .. Data gathering,
insignificant extra-solution activity (IE-SA) step.
[2] identify work (data)… Mental step/observe
[3a] generate a view of pane on a GUI. Display data,
[3b] GUI, select element. Display data.
[4] GUI, generate WU record and specify a user. Display data/mental for selecting a specific user.
Steps [1], [3a] and [3b] are data gathering, data outputting and data displaying which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [2] and [4] for evaluating/identifying workflow collaboration activities through visual representation on a graphical user interface (GUI) in a communication session between two or more users.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) for displaying visual representation of user workload in a chat session on a graphical user interface (GUI), does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
C. Step 2B:
The claims recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[4] above.
Steps [1], [3a] and [3b] are data gathering, data outputting and data displaying which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [2] and [4] for evaluating/identifying workflow collaboration activities through visual representation on a graphical user interface (GUI) in a communication session between two or more users.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, steps [2], [4], when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). As for the system or article claims, mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components, processor, CR medium, GUI, display pane (GUI elements), visual workload, instance of the GUI element, work unit records, etc., are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claim 2 (part of 1 above), which deals with further details of the GUI operation parameters, these further limit the abstract idea of the risk analysis options, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 2 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 5 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the analysis of the third user, these further limit the abstract idea of the analyzed third user conditions, and are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 7-10 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the third user workload parameters, unit, being displayed on the GUI, display features, etc., these further limit the abstract idea of the risk analysis options, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 7-10 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 5, 7-12, 15 and 17-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1) 112 (b) Rejection: withdrawn due to response.
(2) 101 Rejection:
Applicant’s comments on pages 8-12 that the examiner provides two different abstract ideas in Step 2A, Prong 1, which cause confusion and the applicant can not respond is not persuasive.
As shown above, the examiner has consistently cited:
“Analysis of Step 1:
Method: claims 11-12, 15 and 17-20 are directed to a process for displaying visual representation of user workload in a chat session on a graphical user interface (GUI). (Step 1:Yes).
Machine: claims 1-2, 5 and 7-10 are directed to a system comprising a processor, and memory having instructions for causing the system to carry out a series of steps or acts, for displaying visual representation of user workload in a chat session on a graphical user interface (GUI). (Step 1:Yes).
A. Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites a method for displaying visual representation of user workload in a chat session on a graphical user interface (GUI), is a fundamental economic principle or business practice for displaying assigned task/workload parameters on a display, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for displaying visual representation of user workload in a chat session on a graphical user interface (GUI), by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] obtain content (data) .. Data gathering,
insignificant extra-solution activity (IE-SA) step.
[2] identify work (data)… Mental step/observe
[3a] generate a view of pane on a GUI. Display data,
[3b] GUI, select element. Display data.
[4] GUI, generate WU record and specify a user.
Display data/mental for selecting a specific user.
Steps [1], [3a] and [3b] are data gathering, data outputting and data displaying which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [2] and [4] for evaluating/identifying workflow collaboration activities through visual representation on a graphical user interface (GUI) in a communication session between two or more users.”
The examiner has presented the same abstract idea of “displaying visual representation of user workload in a chat session on a graphical user interface (GUI),” Four times in (1) Step 2A, prong 1, (2) Step 2A, prong 2, and (3) Step 2B, so there is no reason for not understanding the abstract idea. Applicant relies on a single detailed explanation of the scope of the claim in step 2A, prong 1 that explains, furthermore that it deals with an abstract idea related to evaluation and displaying workload condition for various involved and assigned parties for effective display of team work which is near the same scope as “displaying visual representation of user workload in a chat session on a graphical user interface (GUI).” Applicant’s comment that examiner fails to meet the analysis standard under Step 2A, Prong 1, is not persuasive.
(2) 103 Rejection: None.
Claim for a system and method to provide visual representation of values of a workload parameter characterizing user workload when generating units of work based on chat sessions between users of a collaboration environment as shown in independent claims 1 or 11, is neither anticipated by, nor obvious in view of, (1) RAPAPORT, US 2012/0.042.263, and
(2) SEUBERT, US 2008/0.120.129, and (3) VAN DUSEN, US 2017/0.235.848.
(3) Double Patenting Rejection:
Applicant’s comment on page 7 that once the application is allowed, applicant will consider filing a Terminal Disclaimer is acknowledged.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6;30-4:30 PM ET.
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 M Monfeldt can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689