DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-10 (system) and 11-20 (method) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-10 (system) and 11, 14-20 (method) of U.S. Patent No. 12,093,859. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the reference claims and are merely a slightly broader version of the ‘859 patent claims, where the differences are not patentably distinct:
Claims 1 and 11 of Instant Case
Application 18/748,457
Claims 1 and 11 of Parent Case
U.S. Patent No. 12,093,859
A system configured to measure and visualize up-to-date workload of users of a collaboration environment, the system comprising:
A system configured to measure and visualize workload for individual users, the system comprising:
one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
manage environment state information maintaining a collaboration environment, the environment state information including work unit records, the work
unit records including work unit information for units of work managed, created, and/or assigned within the collaboration environment, wherein the work unit information for individual units of work includes individual due dates for expected completion of the
individual units of work;
manage environment state information maintaining a collaboration environment, the collaboration environment being configured to facilitate interaction by users with the collaboration environment, the environment state information including work unit records, the work unit records including work unit information for units of work
managed, created, and/or assigned within the collaboration environment, wherein the work unit information for individual units of work includes individual due dates for expected completion of the individual units of work by individual users assigned to the individual units of work;
determine values of a workload parameter associated with a first user, the values conveying a first quantity of the units of work assigned to the first user have first
due dates that fall on a first date;
determine values of a workload parameter for the individual users, the values of the workload parameter specifying, for individual dates, individual quantities of
units of work having due dates that fall on the individual dates, such that the values of the workload parameter for a first user specify that a first quantity of units of work have the due dates that fall on a first date, and a second quantity of units of work have the due dates that fall on a second date;
generate, based on the values of the workload parameter, user interface information defining a user interface reflecting individual quantities of the units of work having the individual due dates falling on individual dates, such that the user interface
displays a first date pane for the first date, the first date pane reflecting the first quantity, and wherein the user interface information is generated based on:
generate, based on the values of the workload parameter, user interface information defining a user interface that reflects the individual quantities of units of
work having the due dates that fall on the individual dates, such that the user interface displays, for the individual users, individual date panes associated with the individual dates, wherein the individual date panes are configured to reflect the individual quantities of units of work having the due dates that fall on the individual dates, such that the user interface displays, for the first user, a first date pane for the first date, and a second date pane for the second date, the first date pane reflecting the first quantity of units of work and the second date pane reflecting the second quantity of units of work, and wherein the user interface information is generated based on:
configuring a first display characteristic of a first user interface element of the first date pane based on the first quantity;
configuring one or more of the display characteristics of the individual user interface elements to reflect the individual quantities of units of work having the due dates that fall on the individual dates, such that a first display
characteristic of a first user interface element of the first date pane is configured based on the first quantity of units of work, and the first display characteristic of a second user interface element of the second date pane is configured based on the second quantity of units of work;
effectuate communication of the user interface information to a first computing platform associated with the first user to cause the first computing platform to present the user interface displaying the first date pane reflecting the first quantity;
effectuate communication of the user interface information to computing platforms associated with the users to cause the computing platforms to present the
user interface, such that the user interface information is communicated to a first computing platform associated with the first user to cause the first computing platform to present the user interface displaying the first date pane reflecting the first quantity of units of work and the second date pane reflecting the second quantity of units of work;
determine updates to the environment state information that impact the values of the workload parameter for the first user, the updates being caused by continued interaction with the collaboration environment by the first user and/or one or more other users; and
determine updates to the environment state information that impact the values of the workload parameter for the individual users, the updates being caused by continued interaction with the collaboration environment by the users via the computing platforms; and
update, based on the updates to the environment state information, the values of the workload parameter for the first user and the user interface information so
that the user interface presented by the first computing platform includes the first date pane reflecting a first up-to-date quantity of the units of work assigned to the first user having the individual due dates that fall on the first date.
update, based on the updates to the environment state information, the values of the workload parameter for the individual users and the user interface information communicated to individual computing platforms so that the user interface presented by the individual computing platforms includes the individual date panes reflecting up-to-date individual quantities of units of work having the due dates that fall on the individual dates.
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 patent-ineligible abstract idea without significantly more and are merely requiring generic computer implementation, which fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. In view of the two-step test regarding determining subject matter eligibility, Examiner submits that the independent claim(s) 1 and 11 recite(s) a system and a method to measure and visualize workload for individual users. Therefore, the claims as a whole are considered as being in a statutory category under Step 1 of the test.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1, Examiner submits that the claims as a whole are directed to a judicially recognized exception that is an abstract idea. The claimed invention is drawn to an abstract idea of measuring and visualizing workload for individual users, by specifically including one or more processors configured by machine-readable instructions to “manage environment state information maintaining a collaboration environment…”, “determine values of a workload parameter associated with a first user…”, “generate…user interface information defining a user interface reflecting individual quantities of units of work…”, “effectuate communication of the user interface to a first computing platform associated with the first user to cause the first computing platform to present the user interface…”; “determine updates to the environment state information that impact the values of the workload parameter for the first user…”; and “update…the values of the workload parameter for the first user and the user interface information so that the user interface presented by the first computing platform includes the first date pane reflecting a first up-to-date quantity of units of work assigned to the first user…”. The limitations of at least “determine values of a workload parameter associated with a first user…” are drawn to performing calculations relating to a workload parameter, which is drawn to the abstract idea grouping of Mathematical Concepts (i.e. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). Furthermore, the limitations of at least “manage environment state information maintaining a collaboration environment…” and “effectuate communication of the user interface to a first computing platform associated with the first user to cause the first computing platform to present the user interface…”, as drafted are drawn to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors; business relations; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). If a claim limitation/invention, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be construed as describing advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors, business relations, or the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the steps together are accomplishing the measuring and visualizing workload for individual users, which as currently amended, is directed to merely displaying data (WURC). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2, Examiner submits that the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner submits that the claims at hand in fact do not include any recitation of additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. To be considered statutory, the claims require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In this regard, Examiner submits that there are no such additional elements that improve the functioning of a computer to any other technology or technical field, apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B drawn to determining if the claim recites additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception, Examiner submits that the claims in fact do not include any recitation of additional elements that would constitute anything significantly more. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using one or more physical processors to perform the steps of the invention. The processor in the claimed steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of computing or processing) such that it amounts 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. 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 and amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Examiner relies on the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s), such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)). Furthermore, the instant claims’ invocation of computers, and/or networks, and/or displays does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions “on a set of generic computer components” and display devices. Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6–7. Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. Such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are “insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application” of an abstract idea. buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1353, 1355; see, e.g., Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348–49; Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48. Therefore, these claim limitations, either individually or as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and do not transform the nature of the claim from the judicial exception into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-10 and 12-20, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that constitute statutory matter. The dependent claims are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims and have been found to either recite additional details that are part of the abstract idea itself (when analyzed under Step 2A Prong One), or include additional details that, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two) and fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea (Step 2B). The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claims) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The dependent claims also recite steps that together with the independent claims are accomplishing the overall process of measuring and visualizing workload for individual users, which falls within the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors; business relations; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Furthermore, claims 8 and 18 include limitations that as drafted, are drawn to performing calculations regarding comparing values, including generating and delivering a notification if the first quantity meets or exceeds a first user threshold quantity, which is drawn to the abstract idea grouping of Mathematical Concepts (i.e. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). Accordingly, the dependent claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MacBeth et al. (US 2008/0114809 A1) teaches of presenting daily task lists.
Vucina et al. (US 2006/0041447 A1) teaches of project management systems and methods.
Maithell et al. (US 2005/0216324 A1) teaches of a system and method for constructing a schedule that better achieves one or more business goals.
Kroeger (US 2002/0120480 A1) teaches of a system, method, and article of manufacture for a project task manager in an integrated scheduling and document management framework.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY Y YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5294. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, 9:00a-3:00p, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/ASHLEY Y YOUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights