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 .
Detailed Action
This Non-Final Rejection Office Action is in response to Applicant’s filing of 08/28/2024.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
The earliest effective filing date of the present application is 12/18/2018.
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 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,154,075. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims 1 – 20 are anticipated by the patent claims. Those claim elements within the application that are identical to the patent claims are illustrated (and highlighted) below.
Certain items that are not explicitly recited, but are nonetheless anticipated, include the following.
The instant applicant claims recites interactions through a graphical user interface, while the patent claims do not use the term graphical. However, it is well known in the art that a graphical user interface allows users to interact with devices using visual elements like boxes, windows, or menus, instead of using text commands. The interactions within the instant claims utilize the identical user-selectable element as claimed within the patent claims. Therefore, the interactions with the user interface within the application claims are anticipated by the patent claims.
The instant application recites a work unit record corresponding to a unit of work, while the patent claims recite a first work unit record for a first unit of work. “A” unit of work would be anticipated to necessarily include a “first” unit. The units of work recited within the instant application are anticipated by the patent claims units of work.
The instant application recites a network connection, while the patent claims recite an Internet connection. Because the instant claims utilize remote computing devices, it is reasonable to anticipate even a local network as using the Internet to connect remoted devices. This network connection within the instant claims is anticipated by the patent claims.
The instant application recites an other [unit of work, element, status], while the patent claims recites a second [unit of work, element, status]. A second variable of many choices would necessarily anticipate there being an other option. The recitations to an other choice are anticipated by the patent claims delineating the identical second options.
A complete listing of claims follows.
Application 18/817,854
Patent 12,154,075
Claim 1
Claim 1
A system configured to update a potentially incorrect status value, the system comprising: one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: manage, by a server, environment state information maintaining a virtual collaboration environment, the virtual collaboration environment being configured to facilitate interaction by users with the virtual collaboration environment through instances of a graphical user interface, the environment state information including a work unit record corresponding to a unit of work managed, created, and/or assigned within the virtual collaboration environment;
A system configured to update potentially incorrect status values, the system comprising: one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: manage, by a server, environment state information maintaining a virtual collaboration environment, the virtual collaboration environment being configured to facilitate interaction by users with the virtual collaboration environment;
interaction by the users with the work unit records through a user interface of the virtual collaboration environment;
the environment state information including work unit records corresponding to units of work managed, created, and/or assigned within the virtual collaboration environment,
update, by the server, the work unit record based on the interaction by the users with the virtual collaboration environment;
update, by the server, the work unit records based on the interaction by the users with the work unit records through a user interface of the virtual collaboration environment;
identify, by the server and based on the update to the work unit record, the work unit record has a potentially incorrect status value for a status parameter, wherein a status value characterizes status of the unit of work, wherein the work unit record is identified as having the potentially incorrect status value because the status value for the work unit record does not reflect the interaction by the users with the virtual collaboration environment which caused the work unit record to be updated;
identify, by the server and based on the update to the work unit records, one or more of the work unit records having potentially incorrect status values for a status parameter, status values characterizing status of individual units of work, wherein the one or more of the work unit records are identified as having the potentially incorrect status values because the status values for the one or more of the work unit records do not reflect the interaction by the users with the one or more of the work unit records which caused the one or more of the work unit records to be updated,
interaction by the users with the work unit records through a user interface of the virtual collaboration environment;
generate, by the server, a status request prompting user input to update the potentially incorrect status value;
generate, by the server, a first status request prompting user input from the first user to update the potentially incorrect first status value;
establish a network connection between a remotely located client computing platform associated with a user and the server;
establish the Internet connection between the first remotely located client computing platform and the server;
wherein a first user interacts with the virtual collaboration environment via a first remotely located client computing platform communicating with the server over an Internet connection
effectuate communication of information from the server to the remotely located client computing platform over the network connection to cause the remotely located client computing platform to present the status request, the status request including a user-selectable element corresponding to an update to the potentially incorrect status value;
effectuate communication of information from the server to the first remotely located client computing platform over the Internet connection so that the first remotely located client computing platform presents the user interface of the virtual collaboration environment displaying the first status request, the first status request including one or more user-selectable input elements corresponding to one or more updates to the potentially incorrect first status value;
obtain, by the server, user input information conveying the user input to update the potentially incorrect status value;
obtain, by the server, user input information conveying the user input into the user interface at the first remotely located client computing platform; and update, by the server, the potentially incorrect first status value based on the user input information;
update, by the server, the potentially incorrect status value based on the user input information, such that responsive to the user input including selection of the user-selectable element, update the potentially incorrect status value to an updated status value.
update, by the server, the potentially incorrect first status value based on the user input information, such that responsive to the user input including selection of a first user-selectable input element, update the potentially incorrect first status value to a first updated value.
Claim 2
Claim 2
The system of claim 1, wherein the interactions by the users that lead to the update of the work unit record includes working on the unit of work or an other unit of work, and/or uploading individual files to the work unit record.
The system of claim 1, wherein the interactions by the users with individual work unit records that lead to the update of the individual work unit records include working on the individual units of work associated with the individual work unit records, and/or uploading individual files to the individual work unit records.
Claim 3
Claim 3
The system of claim 1, wherein the work unit record is identified as having the potentially incorrect status value based on information included in one or more other work unit records.
The system of claim 1, wherein the first work unit record is identified as having the potentially incorrect first status value based on information included in one or more other work unit records of one or more other units of work.
Claim 4
Claim 4
The system of claim 1, wherein the status request is generated automatically in response to updating the work unit record.
The system of claim 1, wherein the first status request is generated automatically in response to updating the first work unit record based on a first set of interactions by one or more of the users with the first work unit record and/or one or more other work unit records.
Claim 5
Claim 5
The system of claim 1, wherein the status request is generated responsive to receiving an update request.
The system of claim 1, wherein the first status request is generated responsive to receiving an update request from a second remotely located client computing platform associated with a second user.
Claim 6
Claim 6
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to: determine a suggested status update for the status request.
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to: determine a first suggested status update for the first status request based on information included in the first work unit record, wherein the first user-selectable input element conveys the first suggested status update.
Claim 7
Claim 7
The system of claim 6, wherein the selection of the user-selectable element conveys approval of the suggested status update.
The system of claim 6, wherein the selection of the first user-selectable input element conveys approval of the first suggested status update.
Claim 8
Claim 8
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to generate an incentive offer indicating an incentive to provide the user input to update the potentially incorrect status value.
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to generate an incentive offer indicating an incentive for the first user to provide the user input.
Claim 1
update, by the server, the potentially incorrect first status value based on the user input information
Claim 9
Claim 9
The system of claim 8, wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to: effectuate presentation of the incentive offer; and provide the incentive.
The system of claim 8, wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to: effectuate presentation of the incentive offer via the first remotely located client computing platform; and provide the incentive to the first user responsive to receiving the user input.
Claim 10
Claim 10
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to: responsive to the user input including selection of an other user-selectable element, update the potentially incorrect status value to an other updated status value.
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to: responsive to the user input including selection of a second user-selectable input element, update the potentially incorrect first status value to a second updated value.
Claim 11
Claim 11
A computer-implemented method to update a potentially incorrect status value, the system comprising: one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
managing, by a server, environment state information maintaining a virtual collaboration environment, the virtual collaboration environment being configured to facilitate interaction by users with the virtual collaboration environment through instances of a graphical user interface, the environment state information including a work unit record corresponding to a unit of work managed, created, and/or assigned within the virtual collaboration environment;
A computer-implemented method to update potentially incorrect status values, the system comprising: one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
managing, by a server, environment state information maintaining a virtual collaboration environment, the virtual collaboration environment being configured to facilitate interaction by users with the virtual collaboration environment;
interaction by the users with the work unit records through a user interface of the virtual collaboration environment;
the environment state information including work unit records corresponding to units of work managed, created, and/or assigned within the virtual collaboration environment,
updating, by the server, the work unit record based on the interaction by the users with the virtual collaboration environment;
updating, by the server, the work unit records based on the interaction by the users with the work unit records through a user interface of the virtual collaboration environment;
identifying, by the server and based on the update to the work unit record, the work unit record has a potentially incorrect status value for a status parameter, wherein a status value characterizes status of the unit of work, wherein the work unit record is identified as having the potentially incorrect status value because the status value for the work unit record does not reflect the interaction by the users with the virtual collaboration environment which caused the work unit record to be updated;
identifying, by the server and based on the update to the work unit records, one or more of the work unit records having potentially incorrect status values for a status parameter, status values characterizing status of individual units of work, wherein the one or more of the work unit records are identified as having the potentially incorrect status values because the status values for the one or more of the work unit records do not reflect the interaction by the users with the one or more of the work unit records which caused the one or more of the work unit records to be updated,
interaction by the users with the work unit records through a user interface of the virtual collaboration environment;
generating, by the server, a status request prompting user input to update the potentially incorrect status value;
generating, by the server, a first status request prompting user input from the first user to update the potentially incorrect first status value;
establishing a network connection between a remotely located client computing platform associated with a user and the server;
establishing the Internet connection between the first remotely located client computing platform and the server;
wherein a first user interacts with the virtual collaboration environment via a first remotely located client computing platform communicating with the server over an Internet connection
effectuating communication of information from the server to the remotely located client computing platform over the network connection to cause the remotely located client computing platform to present the status request, the status request including a user-selectable element corresponding to an update to the potentially incorrect status value;
effectuating communication of information from the server to the first remotely located client computing platform over the Internet connection so that the first remotely located client computing platform presents the user interface of the virtual collaboration environment displaying the first status request, the first status request including one or more user-selectable input elements corresponding to one or more updates to the potentially incorrect first status value;
obtaining, by the server, user input information conveying the user input to update the potentially incorrect status value;
obtaining, by the server, user input information conveying the user input into the user interface at the first remotely located client computing platform; and update, by the server, the potentially incorrect first status value based on the user input information;
updating, by the server, the potentially incorrect status value based on the user input information, such that responsive to the user input including selection of the user-selectable element, update the potentially incorrect status value to an updated status value.
updating, by the server, the potentially incorrect first status value based on the user input information, such that responsive to the user input including selection of a first user-selectable input element, update the potentially incorrect first status value to a first updated value.
Claim 12
Claim 12
The method of claim 11, wherein the interactions by the users that lead to the update of the work unit record includes working on the unit of work or an other unit of work, and/or uploading individual files to the work unit record.
The method of claim 11, wherein the interactions by the users with individual work unit records that lead to the update of the individual work unit records include working on the individual units of work associated with the individual work unit records, and/or uploading individual files to the individual work unit records.
Claim 13
Claim 13
The method of claim 11, wherein the work unit record is identified as having the potentially incorrect status value based on information included in one or more other work unit records.
The method of claim 11, wherein the first work unit record is identified as having the potentially incorrect first status value based on information included in one or more other work unit records of one or more other units of work.
Claim 14
Claim 14
The method of claim 11, wherein the status request is generated automatically in response to updating the work unit record.
The method of claim 11, wherein the first status request is generated automatically in response to updating the first work unit record based on a first set of interactions by one or more of the users with the first work unit record and/or one or more other work unit records.
Claim 15
Claim 15
The method of claim 11, wherein the status request is generated responsive to receiving an update request.
The method of claim 11, wherein the first status request is generated responsive to receiving an update request from a second remotely located client computing platform associated with a second user.
Claim 16
Claim 16
The method of claim 11, further comprising: determining a suggested status update for the status request.
The method of claim 11, further comprising: determining a first suggested status update for the first status request based on information included in the first work unit record, wherein the first user-selectable input element conveys the first suggested status update.
Claim 17
Claim 17
The method of claim 16, wherein the selection of the user-selectable element conveys approval of the suggested status update.
The method of claim 16, wherein the selection of the first user-selectable input element conveys approval of the first suggested status update.
Claim 18
Claim 18
The method of claim 11, further comprising: generating an incentive offer indicating an incentive to provide the user input to update the potentially incorrect status value.
The method of claim 11, further comprising generating an incentive offer indicating an incentive for the first user to provide the user input.
Claim 11
update, by the server, the potentially incorrect first status value based on the user input information
Claim 19
Claim 19
The method of claim 18, further comprising: effectuating presentation of the incentive offer; and providing the incentive.
The method of claim 18, further comprising: effectuating presentation of the incentive offer via the first remotely located client computing platform; and providing the incentive to the first user responsive to receiving the user input.
Claim 20
Claim 20
The method of claim 11, further comprising: responsive to the user input including selection of an other user-selectable element, updating the potentially incorrect status value to an other updated status value.
The method of claim 11, further comprising: responsive to the user input including selection of a second user-selectable input element, updating the potentially incorrect first status value to a second updated value.
Independent claims 1 and 11 have been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and have been determined to recite abstract ideas. However, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner notes that additional claim elements integrate these abstract ideas into a practical application.
Claim 11, which is illustrative of claim 1, recites abstract ideas, such as collaboration over a network and managing work records. This is set forth when reciting managing a work record unit corresponding to a unit of work managed, created, and/or assigned, interaction by the users, status values do not reflect the interaction by the users, prompting the user to update the value, and, user input information responsive to the user selection of selectable element. Therefore, the Examiner concludes the claims describe marketing or sales activities, which is a commercial interaction. The collaboration among the users (as well as the interaction among a user and a computer within the environment), further describes interactions between people. Both of these classifications are considered to describe certain methods of organizing human activity and are considered abstract ideas.
However, The Examiner notes that these claims include additional elements of: identifying, by the server and based on the update to the work unit record, the work unit record has a potentially incorrect status value for a status parameter, wherein a status value characterizes status of the unit of work, wherein the work unit record is identified as having the potentially incorrect status value because the status value for the work unit record does not reflect the interaction by the users with the virtual collaboration environment which caused the work unit record to be updated;
generating, by the server, a status request prompting user input to update the potentially incorrect status value;
effectuating communication of information from the server to the remotely located client computing platform over the network connection to cause the remotely located client computing platform to present the status request, the status request including a user-selectable element corresponding to an update to the potentially incorrect status value;
obtaining, by the server, user input information conveying the user input to update the potentially incorrect status value; and
updating, by the server, the potentially incorrect status value based on the user input information, such that responsive to the user input including selection of the user-selectable element, update the potentially incorrect status value to an updated status value.
Support within the disclosure shows that these additional elements are more than mere instructions to implement the updating of status values within a computer environment and provide for integration of the above abstract ideas into a practical application. A useful result of identifying potentially incorrect status values, occurs only after monitoring of user interactions and use of user-selectable input elements, and allows for the display of an updated, correct, value – (an improvement to the interface). The Examiner notes this result is illustrated at Fig. 6. Therefore, the Examiner has concluded that the claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis at Step 2A, Prong Two; or Pathway B as indicated at MPEP §2106.04.
Claims Distinguished Over Prior Art
Regarding claims 1 - 20, prior art does not teach nor suggest a method as claimed. Certain prior art teaches a method for prompting for work status, (Ma); others teach collaborative task management (Merwarth). However, the prior art of record does not disclose the following claimed elements, either alone, or in combination within claims 1 and 11;
identify, by the server and based on the update to the work unit record, the work unit record has a potentially incorrect status value for a status parameter, wherein a status value characterizes status of the unit of work, wherein the work unit record is identified as having the potentially incorrect status value because the status value for the work unit record does not reflect the interaction by the users with the virtual collaboration environment which caused the work unit record to be updated;
generate, by the server, a status request prompting user input to update the potentially incorrect status value;
effectuate communication of information from the server to the remotely located client computing platform over the network connection to cause the remotely located client computing platform to present the status request, the status request including a user-selectable element corresponding to an update to the potentially incorrect status value;
obtain, by the server, user input information conveying the user input to update the potentially incorrect status value; and
update, by the server, the potentially incorrect status value based on the user input information, such that responsive to the user input including selection of the user-selectable element, update the potentially incorrect status value to an updated status value.
Regarding claims 2 – 10 and 12 – 20, based on their dependency to independent claims 1 and 11, and reciting further limiting elements, inherit the distinguished claim limitations and are therefore, also not disclosed by the prior art. Accordingly, these claims too, are distinguished over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ma discloses a method and apparatus for prompting for work status. Merwarth details systems and methods for collaborative management. The NPL cite discloses Asana Project Management Tutorial.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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, 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629