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 (1) continuation (CON) of 18/453,874, now US Patent 12,124,997, which is
(2) a CON of 17/315,212, now US Patent 11,803,814.
Claim Status
Claim status: claims 1-20 are pending.
1) System1: 1-10, and
2) Method1: 11-20, and
The pending claims comprise 2 groups of similar scope.
As of 07/24/2024, independent claim 1 is as followed:
1. A system configured to provide access to portfolio records of portfolios managed within a collaboration environment, 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 comprising:
[1] 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 a work unit record, a project record, a first portfolio record, and a second portfolio record, the work unit record being subordinate to the project record, the project record being subordinate to the first portfolio record, and the second portfolio record being subordinate to the first portfolio record concurrently with the project record being subordinate to the first portfolio record; and
[2] effectuate presentation of a first portfolio page for the first portfolio record within an instance of a graphical user interface of the collaboration environment,
wherein the first portfolio page is configured to [3] provide access to the first project record that is subordinate to the first portfolio record, and is configured to [4] provide access to the second portfolio record that is concurrently subordinate to the first portfolio record.
Note: for referential purpose, numbers [1]-[4] are added to the beginning of each step.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.11,803,814. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claim 1 with steps:
“managing..”, “effectuate presentation…”, “provide access to the 1st project record…” and “provide access to the 2nd portfolio record” of read the steps:
“managing…”, “effectuate presentation…,” “provide access to the 1st project record,” and “provide access to the 2nd portfolio record” of independent claim 1 US Patent 11,803,814. The feature “nested portfolio hierarchical relationship” in steps “managing…” reads over the steps of “obtaining hierarchical information” and “specifying nested portfolio hierarchical information” of claim 1 of US Patent 11,803,814. Also dep. claims 3-7 of the current application read over dep. claims 3-7 of US Patent 11,803,814.
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 1-20 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.
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.
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) a method of organizing human activities,
(2) an idea of itself, or
(3) a mathematical relationship or formula.
In details:
(1) Certain method 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); and
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
(3) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1-20:
Claim category:
1) Machine/System1 : 1-10, and
2) Process/Method1: 11-20.
Analysis:
System1 claims 1-10 are directed to a system for managing /creating a workflow using GUI elements for work collaboration comprising a processor and program instructions to carry out for steps of: “managing..”, “effectuate presentation…”, “provide access to the 1st project record…” and “provide access to the 2nd portfolio record.”
(Step 1:Yes).
Method1,2 claims 11-20 are directed to a method for managing /creating a workflow using GUI elements for work collaboration comprising steps of: “managing..”, “effectuate presentation…”, “provide access to the 1st project record…” and “provide access to the 2nd portfolio record.” (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims 1-20 are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
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:
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 1, as exemplary, recites a method of managing /creating a workflow using GUI elements for work collaboration comprising steps of: “managing..”, “effectuate presentation…”, “provide access to the 1st project record…” and “provide access to the 2nd portfolio record,” constituting an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. The claim steps in the context of the claim encompass a user determining when the restriction items exceeds a limit, which is a type of “observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.” In other word, managing a workflow on a GUI is a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the use of at least one processor.
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for managing /creating a workflow using GUI elements for work collaboration comprising steps of: “managing..”, “effectuate presentation…”, “provide access to the 1st project record…” and “provide access to the 2nd portfolio record,” by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] manage env. State information (data) … Data displaying, IE-SA.
Insignificant Extra-solution activity (IE-SA).
* list of records (data) in hierarchical relationship.
[2a] effectuate presentation of a page (data)… on a GUI. Data displaying, IE-SA.
[2b] access … process record. Mental step/business activity/collaboration.
[2c] access … portfolio record. Mental step/business activity/collaboration.
Steps [1], [2a] data displaying, data gathering, and data transmitting which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [2b] and [2c] are mental / business activity/ collaboration steps for creating files and managing accessing to the files based on some business access rule.
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 computer devices or modules or software, GUI, i.e. processor with a software application thereon, for work collaboration. 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 for managing /creating a workflow using GUI elements for work collaboration, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The processor, computing platform, computing platform, work unit records, work pages, and work item records in all the steps is recited a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic device performing generic computer functions of: receiving information/data about work item, monitoring input, generating pages, records, and hierarchical relationship between the pages or records, and various access features, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component 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) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
C. Step 2B:
The claims recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[2] above.
Steps [1], [2a] data displaying, data gathering, and data transmitting which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [2b] and [2c] are mental / business activity/ collaboration steps for creating files and managing accessing to the files based on some business access rule.
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 computer devices or modules or software, GUI, i.e. processor with a software application thereon, for work collaboration. 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 for managing /creating a workflow using GUI elements for work collaboration, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The processor, computing platform, computing platform, work unit records, work pages, and work item records in all the steps is recited a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic device performing generic computer functions of: receiving information/data about work item, monitoring input, generating pages, records, and hierarchical relationship between the pages or records, and various access features, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a software for carrying out the managing a workflow using GUI elements for workflow collaboration comprising the cited steps above 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 environment information, this further limits the abstract idea of the environment analysis, 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 does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 3 and 7 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the project accessing parameters, these further limits the abstract idea of the collaboration features, 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 3 and 7 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 4 (part of 1 above), which deals with further details of the navigation of the GUI elements, this further limits the abstract idea of the workflow navigation, 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 4 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 5-6, 8-9 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the permission parameters, these further limits the abstract idea of the collaboration features, 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 5-6 and 8-9 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 10 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the permission parameters, these further limits the abstract idea of the collaboration features, 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 10 not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Claims 11-20 are the method claims of system claim 1-10 and have similar limitation as in claims 1-10. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Closest Prior Art
Independent claim 1 (serve as representative for the other independent claim) is directed to a system configured to provide access to portfolio records of portfolios managed within a collaboration environment, comprising the steps of:
“effectuate presentation of a first portfolio page for the first portfolio record within a user interface of the collaboration environment, wherein the first portfolio page provides access to the first project record that is subordinate to the first portfolio record, and provides access to the second portfolio record that is concurrently subordinate to the first portfolio record.”
is neither anticipated by, nor obvious in view of, (1) LINEBERRY ET AL., US 7,006,978, in view of (2) CALA ET AL., US 8,407,072, and (3) WO 0139027-A1, which references neither disclose nor suggest.
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
Prosecution Insights