DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 1-11 are considered in this Office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/21/2024 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
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.
Alice - Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 recite limitations to register a task object in a task object database (Receiving and Analyzing Information, an Evaluation and Judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Managing Tasks; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), to, when receiving a task display request signal for a particular task object, search the task object database for the particular task object and create work progress status summary information including settings information on a progress bar based on context information corresponding to status information at the time of receipt of the task display request signal (Receiving, Analyzing, and Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an Evaluation and Judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Managing Tasks; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and to provide the context information to the work progress status processing part in response to occurrence of a user interaction related to a user's login and a user's selection or entry to receive the work progress status summary information, and visualize and display a progress bar of the work progress status summary information (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an Evaluation and Judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Managing Tasks; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of organizing and tracking information for Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Managing Tasks, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a task object database processing part, a work progress status processing part, a work processing part, a computer-readable medium, computer, a task object database, and a work display device, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Organizing and Tracking information in order to manage tasks. For example, to provide the context information in response to receiving a request from a user encompasses a supervisor asking for a progress report from a worker, which would include summary and visualization information, which is an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for organizing and tracking information for Managing Human Activity, i.e. Managing tasks, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The work display device, task object database processing part, work progress status processing part, work processing part, task object database, computer, and computer readable media are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmitting steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, 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.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“The user terminal 110 may correspond to a computing device that may be connected to the work chat room processing apparatus 130 over a network – for example, a terminal that is implemented as a desktop, a laptop, a tablet PC, or a smart phone.”
Which shows that any computer, desktop, smartphone, etc. can be used to perform the abstract limitations, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the device, computer, parts, etc., nor the receiving or transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-9 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements and any being used being highly generic when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman (U.S. Publication No. 2018/019,7131) in view of Crusson (U.S. Publication No. 2017/028,9073).
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 11, Grossman, a system and method for automated distribution of subtask assignment to user device ([0006] user device for tasks), teaches a work display device comprising:
teaches including settings information on a progress bar based on context information corresponding to status information at the time of receipt of the task display request signal ([0074] progress bar shows a status of tasks and number of tasks complete along with multiple other information such as summary information, to list with steps, etc),
but does not teach a chatroom being used in the process.
Crusson, a system and method for providing controls in a messaging interface, teaches a task object database processing part configured to register a task object in a task object database (Crusson: [a task "item" or object [0246] database [0090] processing part where in [0106] a task "item" or object message is registered [0246] by work chat rooms [0081] in a task "item" or object 0246 database [0090]);
a work processing part configured to provide the context information to the work progress status processing part in response to occurrence of a user interaction related to a user's login and a user's selection or entry to receive the work progress status summary information, and visualize and display a progress bar of the work progress status summary information (Crusson: [a "function" or work processing "device" or part configured to upon occurrence of a "client" or user interaction [0081] provides the current context information to the "project" or work [0072] progress [0131] status summary information [0075] for each status of "project" of work progress [0072] in a "function" or work chat room [0081] list [0087] or task "item" or object [0246] list [0087]), and
teaches a work progress status processing part configured to, when receiving a task display request signal for a particular task object, search the task object database for the particular task object and create work progress status summary information (Crusson: a "incident" or work status [0119] progress [0131] configured to create "incident" or work status [0119] progress [0131] status summary information [0075] based on current context information [0072] by searching the task object database [0149]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the progress bar and task status of the system of Grossman with the task status in a chat room of the system of Crusson as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to tracking status of tasks, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve subtask and stage assignments by increasing personal engagement and interest and more quality work as taught in [0008] of Grossman.
Examiner notes Crusson teaches a computer-readable medium and computer ([0387-388]).
Regarding Claim 2, Grossman teaches wherein the settings information on the progress bar includes information on start and end points of a task object including a task and a note object, status information and visualization information for each stage of work progress of the task object ([0029-30] progress bars use sliders to determine information with start and end for each stage [0052] of the task process)
Regarding Claim 3, Grossman teaches wherein the work progress status processing part is further configured to create the work progress status summary information for different phases distinguished by how close a task’s due date in the task object is ([0029] the information is summarized based on how close the work is done)
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Grossman and Crussen teaches a work chat room as in Claim 1 above.
Grossman teaches a user interaction being used to determine status information as in [0032] where user input indicating the assigned subtask/phase is complete.
Grossman also teaches a room list with teammates as in Fig. 2.
Regarding Claim 6, Grossman teaches, wherein, once a task object list is created through the user interaction ([0032] as in Claim 5 above), the work processing part is further configured to include the work progress status summary information in the task object list which classifies task objects by each status of work progress (Figure 2 classifies the status of the work in progress)
Regarding Claim 7, Grossman teaches wherein the work processing part is further configured to display information about the remaining tasks up to the end of the progress bar as of a current time (Figure 2 shows the progress bar along with the remaining tasks to end the progress)
Regarding Claim 8, Grossman teaches wherein the work processing part is further configured to display the progress bar in response to the task display request signal in a situation where an icon or image corresponding to the task is displayed (Figure 2 shows the progress bar along with the task object with an image and icons)
Regarding Claim 9, Grossman teaches wherein the work processing part is further configured to display the progress bar corresponding to the task object along with the task object (Figure 2 shows the progress bar along with the task object)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossman (U.S. Publication No. 2018/019,7131) in view of Crusson (U.S. Publication No. 2017/028,9073) in further view of Najmi (U.S. Publication No. 2016/021,7406).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Grossman and Crusson teaches the work display device and the work progress status processing part as in Claim 3 above. Grossman also teaches the information about stages as in Claims 2 and 3 above and a task object as in Fig. 2, but does not explicitly state a PDCA cycle of a work progress.
Neither does Crusson.
Najmi teaches a PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle of the work progress in conjunction with performing tasks in a supply chain system as in [0055-56].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the summary information and task status of the system of the combination of Grossman and Crusson with the supply chain task assignment system using PDCA cycle analysis of Najmi as they are all analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to tracking status of tasks, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve increase lead time available to responds to an issue, increasing efficiency as taught in [0078-79] of Grossman.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180197131 A1
GROSSMAN; Tovi et al.
AUTOMATED DISTRIBUTION OF SUBTASK ASSIGNMENTS TO USER DEVICES
US 20170289073 A1
Crusson; Tanguy et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING CONTROLS IN A MESSAGING INTERFACE
US 20160217406 A1
Najmi; Adeel
Self-Learning Supply Chain System
US 20120123835 A1
Chu; Viva
Systems and Methods of Managing Tasks Assigned to An Individual
US 20220351148 A1
CHITRAPU; Sriram M. et al.
PRODUCTIVITY ENTITY CONTAINERS AND UNIFIED VIEW INTERFACE FOR DIFFERENT PRODUCTIVITY ENTITY TYPES
US 20220076207 A1
Culver; Andrew et al.
COLLABORATION TOOL
US 20200303063 A1
Sharma; Prem Prakash et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DYNAMIC AND TAILORED CARE MANAGEMENT
US 20200122855 A1
CONAWAY; Cody Ryan
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR A GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE OF AN ELECTRONIC AVIATION CHECKLIST
US 20180302357 A1
Cohen; Marc A.
PARALLEL MESSAGING APPARATUS AND METHOD THEREOF
US 20170185212 A1
JEONG; Hyesoon et al.
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING TOUCH EVENTS
US 20170011344 A1
CHOI; Jae Ho
METHOD OF MANAGING STRATEGY-MAP EXECUTABLE BY COMPUTER, SERVER PERFORMING THE SAME AND STORAGE MEDIA STORING THE SAME
US 20160342927 A1
Reznik; Leonid et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING AN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INTERFACE
US 20160224939 A1
Chen; Pehong et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING TASKS
US 20160132222 A1
YOO; Nagyeom et al.
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR USING BLANK AREA IN SCREEN
US 20160110677 A1
Aynsley-Hartwell; Peter et al.
SYSTEMS AND TECHNIQUES FOR ENSURING THE INTEGRITY OF ENTERPRISE ASSET MANAGEMENT DATA
US 20160026960 A1
Carnahan; Timothy
METHOD FOR MANAGING KNOWLEDGE WITHIN AN ORGANIZATION
US 20150363092 A1
Morton; Michael
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COLLABORATIVE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
US 20140349627 A1
CHOI; Bokun et al.
DISPLAYING A GROUP MESSAGE
US 20140310132 A1
Culver; Andrew et al.
COLLABORATION TOOL
US 20140244329 A1
URBAN; Daniel R.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATED PROJECT MANAGEMENT
US 20110208822 A1
Rathod; Yogesh Chunilal
Method and system for customized, contextual, dynamic and unified communication, zero click advertisement and prospective customers search engine
US 20080279202 A1
Choi; Hyun Woo et al.
Integrated Gateway for Distributed Home Network and Software Framework Structure for the Same
US 20080209417 A1
Jakobson; Gabriel
Method and system of project management and task collaboration over instant messenger
US 20080091782 A1
Jakobson; Gabriel
Method and system for delegating and managing tasks over instant messenger
US 6889196 B1
Clark; Douglas
Method and apparatus for planning, monitoring, and illustrating multiple tasks based on user defined criteria and predictive ability
US 6604131 B1
Warris; Ronald W. et al.
Method and system for distributing a work process over an information network
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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 on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
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.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683 12/5/2025
Prosecution Insights