DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is in reply to the communications filed on 04 June 2026.
Claims 11, 15 and 17 have been canceled.
Claims 1-10, 12-14 and 16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Previous Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph of claim 2 in view of the claim amendments.
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 1-10, 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims fall within any statutory category. Claims 1-10, 12, and 16 recite a method (i.e. a process), claim 13 recites a device (i.e. a machine), and claim 14 recites a computer-readable storage medium (i.e. manufacture). Thus the claims fall within at least one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea, providing the first subtask to a plurality of creators in a creator group for each creator to input one piece of first created information according to the subtask description information, wherein the plurality of creators comprise a first creator and a second creator; receiving the plurality of pieces of created information from the plurality of creators, and generating a plurality of execution contents, each execution content of the plurality of execution contents corresponding to a piece of information of the plurality of pieces of created information; receiving a first execution content selected by the second creator from the plurality of execution contents, wherein the first execution content is created by the first creator; updating the creation state of the second subtask to the creatable state in response to the first execution content, and providing the updated second subtask to the second creator for the second creator to input second created information according to the subtask description information and the piece of created information corresponding to the first execution content; receiving the second created information of the second creator for the second subtask in the creatable state, and generating a second execution content corresponding to the second subtask; extracting creation content blocks from the first execution content and/or the second execution content in response to a viewing request; assembling the creation content blocks to generate a digital work draft.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations, the limitations fall within certain methods of organizing human activity because they cover steps of enabling a creators to input pieces of created information according to subtasks and generating a digital work draft. This is an example of managing collaboration/interactions between people. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements, obtaining a collaborative creation task, wherein the collaborative creation task comprises a plurality of subtasks, each of the subtasks comprises subtask description information, and a dependency relationship exists among the subtasks; obtaining creation states of the subtasks, wherein the creation states comprise a creatable state and a non-creatable state, and the creation states are set according to the dependency relationship among the subtasks. However, these limitations amount to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 2, recites additional elements including a task template comprising template description information, a task setting object, the subtasks, a creation content block of a digital work and a first content generation manner. The components of the task template are recited at a high level of generality and merely perform the function of receiving information and displaying information. Therefore, the additional elements of claim 2 amount to mere data gathering and output and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 3, 4 and 10, 12 further recites certain methods of organizing human activity as identified in claim 1 because they cover steps of enabling the creator to input information associated with subtasks. Claims 3, 4 and 10, 12 additionally merely narrow the type of information associated with the subtasks and therefore does not render the claims less abstract.
Dependent claim 5 recites the additional elements, wherein the step of obtaining a collaborative creation task comprises: obtaining a task identifier of the collaborative creation task, wherein the task identifier is a globally unique identifier generated when the collaborative creation task is released; and/or the step of generating a plurality of execution content corresponding to the plurality of created information comprises: generating a first execution content data block, wherein the plurality of execution content data block comprises creation content information, the content relationship information, and/or the task identifier, and/or creator identity information; and the content relationship information comprises content attribution relationship, and/or content dependency relationship, and/or content inheritance relationship; and/or the step of generating a plurality of execution content corresponding to the plurality of created information further comprises: storing the execution content data block, generating an access address of each execution content data block, generating execution content data packets, and releasing the execution content data packet into a blockchain, wherein the execution content data packet comprises the access address of the execution content data block, and/or a digital fingerprint of the execution content data block generated according to the execution content data block. The “obtaining” and “storing” steps are mere data gathering and storage recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 6 recites, forming a first task state graph according to the subtasks and the dependency relationship existing among the subtasks, wherein nodes of the first task state graph comprise the subtasks, and a relationship among the nodes comprises the dependency relationship among the subtasks. Claim 9 recites, wherein a process of setting the creation states according to the dependency relationship among the subtasks comprises: setting a subtask that does not depend on any other subtask and is able to be directly created to be in a creatable state; setting a subtask that is only able to be created by depending on one or more other subtasks to be in a creatable state when all atomic-type subtasks on which this subtask depends have execution contents; and setting this subtask to be in a non-creatable state when one of the atomic-type subtasks on which this subtask depends does not have an execution content.
Claims 6 and 9 can be considered as to fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because the steps of forming, generating and setting mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil. The Courts generally treat collecting information as well as analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds and/or by pen & paper as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See 2106.04(a)(2) Part III.
Claim 7 recites the limitations, wherein, when the first subtask depends on the second subtask and the first execution content belongs to the first subtask, the content relationship information of the first execution content further comprises: the content dependency relationship, pointing to a second execution content, from which the first execution content is derived, in execution contents owned by the second subtask; and/or the content inheritance relationship, pointing to a third execution content, wherein both the third execution content and the first execution content belong to the first subtask, and the first execution content is obtained by revising on the basis of the third execution content. The limitations further narrow the abstract idea of claim 1 by providing further details of the execution content of the subtask
Claim 8 recites the additional elements, a subtask type of a subtask with creation content information that comprises next-level subtasks is a framework-type subtask, and a subtask type of a subtask with creation content information that does not comprise next-level subtasks is an atomic-type subtask; generating a digital work information snapshot when an execution content node of an atomic-type subtask exists in the second task state graph, or when an execution content node of an atomic-type subtask and an execution content node of a next-level atomic-type subtask both exist in the second task state graph, or when an execution content node of a next-level atomic-type subtask exists in the second task state graph, wherein the information snapshot comprises: the execution content nodes; or the execution content nodes and a content dependency relationship among the execution content nodes. The limitations can be considered as to fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because the step of generating mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil. The Courts generally treat collecting information as well as analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds and/or by pen & paper as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See 2106.04(a)(2) Part III.
Claim 13 recites the additional elements, electronic device, comprising: a memory and a processor, wherein the memory and the processor are in communicational connection with each other, the memory has computer instructions stored. However, the additional elements are computing components recited at a high level of generality to perform the method steps. The computing components perform the abstract idea such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components.
Claim 14 recites the additional elements including computer-readable storage medium with computer instructions stored therein. However, the additional elements are computing components recited at a high level of generality to perform the method steps. The computing components perform the abstract idea such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components.
Claim 16 recites, wherein the first execution content and/or the second execution content at least comprises: creation content information, comprising content information input by the creator for the subtask, and/or content information input by the second creator for the second subtask; creator identity information, generated based on the first creator and/or the second creator; content relationship information, comprises a content attribution relationship, being an attribution relationship between the execution content of the subtask and the subtask, wherein the attribution relationship is configured to indicate that the subtask owns the execution content. The limitations further narrow the abstract idea of claim 1 by providing further details of the execution content.
Considered individually and 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
As a whole, claims 1-10, 12-14 and 16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Instead, the computing components are being used as tools to perform the abstract idea such that they provide nothing more than generally linking the use of the abstract to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f & h). For the same reasons, the recited elements are insufficient to provide an inventive concept and fail to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
For the obtaining, storing and displaying steps that were considered extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. The Ultramercial, Symantec, TLI, Versata and OIP Techs court decisions indicate that mere transmission, presentation and storage 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. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the claim do not add anything further than when they are considered separately. Thus, under Step 2B, the claims are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee et al (US 7,386,797 B1) in view of Pareschi et al (US 6,725,428 B1).
Claim 1: Chatterjee discloses a digital work collaborative creation method, comprising: obtaining a collaborative creation task (see col. 2 lines 6-11: executing a project within a collaborative environment. In one embodiment, the method comprises creating a parent workspace for a parent project and a child workspace for each child project of the parent project),
wherein the collaborative creation task comprises a plurality of subtasks, each of the subtasks comprises subtask description information, and a dependency relationship exists among the subtasks (see col. 4 lines 51-col. 5 lines 1-30: the tasklist templates and project templates can be used to model business processes which contains a set of action(s)/task(s) which are performed on certain resources. A tasklist template/type will contain one or more dependent/independent task types/templates, task users(s) and task data. A compound task generally comprises simple tasks associated with each other by control flow or workflow associations, such as for example Sequential, Parallel, Synchronization, Loop or Branch workflow associations. A task can also have before/after email, alert or callback actions. A task type can model a simple unit of work or a compound unit of work (i.e. an ordered set of task types connected to each other via task associations).);
obtaining creation states of the subtasks, wherein the creation states comprise a creatable state and a non-creatable state, and the creation states are set according to the dependency relationship among the subtasks (see col. 2 lines 22-30: the tasklist is begun by changing its status to STARTED. If there are multiple start/first tasks within the tasklist, then a workspace is created for each first task. Each first task changes its status to be ACTIVE, so that these tasks can be now started by their respective users. In case the tasklist contain only one first task, then this task can be executed within the tasklist workspace. A tasklist is a set of inter-dependent tasks.);
the plurality of subtasks comprise a first subtask and a second subtask, wherein the second subtask depends on the first subtask the first subtask is in the creatable state, and the second subtask is in the non-creatable state (see col. 8 lines 44-66: When the execution of the task begins ("Begin Task") the task status is changed from ACTIVE to STARTED. The before Begin Task call backs are called (if any). If the task is automatic and not compound, then the specified procedure to do the task is called. Then, the End Task function is called. If the task is a compound task, the first level child task is activated by creating a sub-workspace for each child task where it will get executed. The needed task attributes are defined by the tasklist manager and associated with the task instance. Calling on activating an End Task function generally includes changing the task status from STARTED to ENDED, and calling after End Task callbacks (if any). If the next task to be executed is a sequential task, a save-point is created in the current task workspace):
providing the first subtask to a plurality of creators in a creator group for each creator to input one piece of created information of a plurality of pieces of created information according to the subtask description information, wherein the plurality of creators comprise a first creator and a second creator (see col. 8 lines 41-43: data item privileges are granted to the task users of this task so that they are able to operate on these task workspaces).
Chatterjee does not expressly disclose the following limitations but Pareschi which also discloses a collaborative system and method teaches, receiving the plurality of pieces of created information from the plurality of creators and generating a plurality of execution contents, each execution content of the plurality of execution contents corresponding to a piece of information of the plurality of pieces of created information (See col. 3 lines 11-20: a first user input and a second user input are received. The first user input indicates a first object and a second object. The first object and the second object each have a set of features. The second user input indicates a rule that defines a relationship between the first object and the second object. The rule includes a constraint to be satisfied by a feature of the first object and a feature of the second object. A grammar representing the work process is compiled in the memory from the rule indicated by the second user input.); receiving a first execution content selected by the second creator from the plurality of execution contents, wherein the first execution content is created by the first creator (See col. 8 lines 60-65); updating the creation state of the second subtask to the creatable state, and in response to the first execution content and providing the updated second subtask to the second creator for the second creator to input second created information according to the subtask description information and the piece of created information corresponding to the first execution content (see col. 8 lines 57-65: 35) Alternatively, if it is desired to allow work on the body and the conclusion to proceed in parallel, but in a co-ordinated fashion, we could replace the first constraint in FIG. 6 with "body triggers concl". Such a constraint allows work on the subdocument conclusion to start whenever work on the subdocument body has started, and also defines how the two efforts are co-ordinated: whenever a new version of the body is "released" by its "owners," it becomes available to the owners of the conclusion, as illustrated in FIG. 7.); receiving the second created information of the second creator for the second subtask in the creatable state, and generating a second execution content corresponding to the second subtask (see col. 14 lines 39-48: each user action is attached to a specific task (or sub-goal), or set of tasks. This precludes such global constraints as resource bounds, discussed below. Now, a user action B, performed after a user action A, is considered dependent on A if, had the constraint added by A not been added, the task attached to B could not have existed. In other words, action B depends on action A if action A has enabled, by means of constraint propagation, the expansion of a subgoal which has generated the task attached to action B); extracting creation content blocks from the first execution content and/or the second execution content in response to a viewing request (see Fig. 13); assembling the creation content blocks to generate a digital work draft (See col. 11 lines 57-66: 64) Rule 8 shows how a non-decomposable document process can be handled by strict sequentialization of activities dependent on the same document through use of a local constraint of the form doc1 precedes doc2. This document rule describes the structure of the final revision to be submitted for publication: the referee's comments are incorporated into the parent document paper as revisions to produce the revisedPaper. The local precedes constraint enforces that the authors cannot begin revising the paper until they receive the referee's comments, thus enforcing strict sequentiality of activities acting on the same non-decomposable parent document object, paper. Both the referee and the authors modify copies of the same document in a strictly co-ordinated sequence).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the collaborative environment of Chatterjee, receiving the plurality of pieces of created information from the plurality of creators and generating a plurality of execution contents, each execution content of the plurality of execution contents corresponding to a piece of information of the plurality of pieces of created information; receiving a first execution content selected by the second creator from the plurality of execution contents, wherein the first execution content is created by the first creator; updating the creation state of the second subtask to the creatable state, and in response to the first execution content and providing the updated second subtask to the second creator for the second creator to input second created information according to the subtask description information and the piece of created information corresponding to the first execution content; receiving the second created information of the second creator for the second subtask in the creatable state, and generating a second execution content corresponding to the second subtask; extracting creation content blocks from the first execution content and/or the second execution content in response to a viewing request and assembling the creation content blocks to generate a digital work draft as taught by Pareschi because it “augments the representation of tasks and documents and the types of dependencies among them that can be expressed. Key to this is the use of constraints to describe the complex soft dependencies of actual work practice” (Pareschi, col. 16 lines 36-38).
Claim 2: The combination of Chatterjee and Pareschi discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above. Chatterjee discloses wherein the collaborative creation task comprises a task template, and the task template comprises template description information, a task setting object, and the subtasks (see col. 4 lines 55-57: A tasklist template/type will contain one or more dependent/independent task types/templates, task users(s) and task data); the template description information is configured to describe the task template (see col. 6 lines 26-30: A tasklist type is an ordered set of task types connected to each other via task associations. A tasklist template/type, has a name, set of user-defined attributes and a system defined "status" attribute, which represents the current state of the tasklist); the task setting object is configured for a task releaser to input task setting information (see col. 5 lines 17-25: A task type models a task in a tasklist. A task type generally comprises a task name, task description, and task data/resources, which need to be operated on inside the task. A task is an operation performed inside a workspace 120. A task is part of a tasklist and can be manual or automatic. A task can be simple or compound in nature. A compound task generally comprises simple tasks associated with each other by control flow or workflow associations); the subtasks comprise the subtask description information, and the dependency relationship exists among the subtasks (see col. 5 lines 17-25: A task type models a task in a tasklist. A task type generally comprises a task name, task description, and task data/resources, which need to be operated on inside the task. A task is an operation performed inside a workspace 120. A task is part of a tasklist and can be manual or automatic. A task can be simple or compound in nature. A compound task generally comprises simple tasks associated with each other by control flow or workflow associations); the subtasks are configured to be provided to the creator for the creator to input the created information according to the subtask description information (see col. 8 lines 44-66: The needed task attributes are defined by the tasklist manager and associated with the task instance); the dependency relationship among the subtasks is configured for setting the creation states of the subtasks (see col. 5 lines 17-25: A task type models a task in a tasklist. A task type generally comprises a task name, task description, and task data/resources, which need to be operated on inside the task. A task is an operation performed inside a workspace 120. A task is part of a tasklist and can be manual or automatic. A task can be simple or compound in nature. A compound task generally comprises simple tasks associated with each other by control flow or workflow associations); and/or the task template further comprises a creation content block of a digital work and a first content generation manner; the creation content block of the digital work comprises a content block object, a content block display attribute, and a content block relationship attribute; the content block object is configured for inputting a work content; the content block display attribute is configured to describe a display form of the work content of the content block object in the digital work; the content block relationship attribute is configured to describe a mutual relationship between the content block and other content blocks in the digital work; the first content generation manner is configured to describe a manner of generating the creation content block from the execution content of the subtask; and the collaborative creation task further comprises task setting information, the task setting information is configured to be provided to the creator for the creator to input the created information according to the task setting information and the subtask description information.
Claim 13: The combination of Chatterjee and Pareschi discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above. Chatterjee further teaches, an electronic device, comprising: a memory and a processor, wherein the memory and the processor are in communicational connection with each other, the memory has computer instructions stored therein, and the processor is configured to execute the digital work collaborative creation method according to claim 1 by executing the computer instructions (See col. 14 lines 50-55: the computer system 50 can also include a main memory 58, such as a random access memory (RAM) or other dynamic storage device, coupled to the bus 51 for storing information and instructions to be executed by the processor ).
Claim 14: The combination of Chatterjee and Pareschi discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above. Chatterjee further teaches, a computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium has computer instructions stored therein, and the computer instructions are configured to cause a computer to execute the digital work collaborative creation method according to claim 1 (see col. 15 lines 4-7: Computers 50 and 52 are generally adapted to utilize program storage devices 60 embodying machine readable program source code that is adapted to cause the computers 50 and 52 to perform the method steps of the present invention).
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee and Pareschi as applied to claim 1 above in view of Jauhar et al (US 20210004436 A1).
Claim 3: The combination of Chatterjee, and Pareschi, discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above. Chatterjee and Pareschi do not expressly disclose the following limitations but Jauhar which also discloses task templates teaches wherein the first execution content and/or the second execution content at least comprises creation content information, the creation content information comprising: next-level subtasks, comprising next-level subtask description information configured to be provided first creator and/or the second creator for the first creator and/or the second creator to input the created information according to the next-level subtask description information; an attribution relationship between the next-level subtasks and the execution content of the subtask, wherein the attribution relationship is configured to indicate that the execution content of the subtask owns the next-level subtasks; and/or a dependency relationship among the next-level subtasks, configured for setting the creation states of the next-level subtasks (see [0040]: Method 350 begins at operation 352, where a subtask of a task template is accessed. In examples, the subtask is accessed from a task data store, such as task data store 112, 116, or 120 in FIG. 1. [0041] At determination 354, a subtask type is determined for the accessed subtask. As illustrated, the subtask is determined to either be “PARAMETRIC” or “CONDITIONAL.” It will be appreciated that such subtask types are provided as examples and that, in other examples, additional, alternative, or fewer subtask types may be used. Additionally, operations 356-358 and 362 and 364 are not mutually exclusive. Rather, in some examples, a subtask may be both parametric and conditional. [0045]: Example conditional criteria include, but are not limited to, completion of another task or subtask, the availability of an input associated with the subtask).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chatterjee and Pareschi, with the method of, a dependency relationship among the next-level subtasks, configured for setting the creation states of the next-level subtasks as taught by Jauhar because it would enable the user to adapt the subtasks (Jauhar, [0056]).
Claim 4: The combination of Chatterjee, Pareschi, and Jauhar discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 3 above. Jauhar further teaches wherein the dependency relationship for the execution content of the subtask that owns the next-level subtasks further comprises: a dependency relationship between the next-level subtasks and execution contents of other subtasks, pointing to the execution contents of other subtasks on which the execution content of the subtask depends; and/or a dependency relationship between other subtasks and the next-level subtasks, pointing to the next-level subtasks (See [0056])
Claim(s) 5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee and Pareschi as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Zubizarreta (US 2013/0046573 A1).
Claim 5: The combination of Chatterjee and Pareschi discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above. Chatterjee and Pareschi do not expressly disclose the following limitations but Zubizarreta in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein the step of obtaining a collaborative creation task comprises: obtaining a task identifier of the collaborative creation task, wherein the task identifier is a globally unique identifier generated when the collaborative creation task is released (see [0034]: the task data record 502 may include a task_id 504 index that may be used to access the task data record or for other data records to reference the task data record); and/or the step of generating a plurality of execution content corresponding to the first subtask comprises: generating a first execution content data block, wherein the plurality of execution content data block comprises creation content information, content relationship information, and/or the task identifier, and/or creator identity information; and the content relationship information comprises content attribution relationship, and/or content dependency relationship, and/or content inheritance relationship; and/or the step of generating a plurality of execution contents corresponding to the first subtask plurality of created information further comprises: storing the execution content data blocks, generating an access address of each execution content data block, generating execution content data packets, and releasing the execution content data packets into a blockchain, wherein the execution content data packet comprises the access address of the execution content data block, and/or a digital fingerprint of the execution content data block generated according to the execution content data block.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and system of Chatterjee and Pareschi with the method of obtaining a task identifier of the collaborative creation task, wherein the task identifier is a globally unique identifier generated when the collaborative creation task is released as taught by Zubizarreta in order to track task completion (Zubizarreta, [0036]).
Claim 9: The combination of Chatterjee and Pareschi discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above. Chatterjee and Pareschi do not expressly disclose the following limitations but Zubizarreta in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein a process of setting the creation states according to the dependency relationship among the subtasks comprises: setting a subtask that does not depend on any other subtask and is able to be directly created to be in a creatable state; setting a subtask that is only able to be created by depending on one or more other subtasks to be in a creatable state when all atomic-type subtasks on which this subtask depends have execution contents; and setting this subtask to be in a non-creatable state when one of the atomic-type subtasks on which this subtask depends does not have an execution content (see [0032] The task data 414 may also include data related to task dependencies 420. A particular task may rely on data from previous tasks to be properly performed. Similarly, a particular task may need to be performed before a subsequent task may be properly executed. Task dependency data 420 may identify predecessor and successor tasks of a particular task. Using the dependency data 420 the particular task may be made available for completion when all predecessor tasks are noted as complete. Similarly, a successor task may be made available for completion when the particular task and all other predecessors of the successor task are completed. A particular task (or sub-task) may also include a number of sub-tasks to be performed as part of performance of the particular task. In this way, a one-to-many relationship may exist between a particular task and sub-tasks of the particular task).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and system of Chatterjee and Pareschi with the method of wherein a process of setting the creation states according to the dependency relationship among the subtasks comprises: setting a subtask that does not depend on any other subtask and is able to be directly created to be in a creatable state; setting a subtask that is only able to be created by depending on one or more other subtasks to be in a creatable state when all atomic-type subtasks on which this subtask depends have execution contents; and setting this subtask to be in a non-creatable state when one of the atomic-type subtasks on which this subtask depends does not have an execution content as taught by Zubizarreta because it would ensure that subsequent tasks are properly executed (Zubizarreta, [0032]).
Claim 10: The combination of Chatterjee, Pareschi and Zubizarreta discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 9 above. Zubizarreta further teaches, wherein when an atomic-type subtask on which the subtask depends has a plurality of execution contents, the step of setting the subtask to be in a creatable state comprises: receiving one execution content selected by the first creator and/or second creator from the plurality of execution contents; and setting the subtask to be in the creatable state (see [0038]: The tasks appearing on a task list graphical user interface for the user 606 may belong to a number of different categories including data entry and calculation tasks, data review tasks, data approval tasks, and auditing tasks. The task list may further include a status indicator with each task on the task list 604. The status indicator may identify the task as completed or not completed. The status indicator may further identify whether a listed task is available for work. A task is available for work when the financial close management engine is able to access all accounting data on which the task relies. When upstream tasks on which a listed task depends have not been completed, then the listed task is unavailable. When the upstream tasks have been completed, the status indicator for the listed task may be changed to available.).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee and Pareschi as applied to claims 1 above and in further view of Grossman et al (US 20180197131 A1).
Claim 6: The combination of Chatterjee and Pareschi discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above. Chatterjee and Pareschi do not expressly disclose the following limitations but Grossman which also discloses a task/subtask assignment system teaches, forming a first task state graph according to the subtasks and the dependency relationship existing among the subtasks, wherein nodes of the first task state graph comprise the subtasks, and a relationship among the nodes comprises the dependency relationship among the subtasks (see [0030]: hierarchical tree graph (task tree) that visually represents the task. The hierarchical tree graph may comprise a root node 255 and a plurality of child nodes 260. The root node 255 represents the overall task to be completed, the task comprising a plurality of subtasks/sections that must each be completed for the task to be completed. In other embodiments, the root node 255 may represent the final subtask/section to be completed to complete the overall task. Each child node 260 represents a particular subtask/section of the overall task. Particular subtasks may have dependencies on other subtasks which must be completed before work on the particular subtasks may begin.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the method and system of Chatterjee and Pareschi, forming a first task state graph according to the subtasks and the dependency relationship existing among the subtasks, wherein nodes of the first task state graph comprise the subtasks, and a relationship among the nodes comprises the dependency relationship among the subtasks as taught by Grossman because it would “generate subtask assignments for a group of human workers that enable a task to be completed more efficiently and with higher quality” (Grossman, [0007]).
Claim 8: The combination of Chatterjee, Pareschi and Grossman discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 6 above. Grossman further teaches, a subtask type of a subtask with creation content information that comprises next-level subtasks is a framework-type subtask, and a subtask type of a subtask with creation content information that does not comprise next-level subtasks is an atomic-type subtask; generating a digital work information snapshot when an execution content node of an atomic-type subtask exists in the second task state graph (See [0032]: A third screenshot 320 of the personal UI 118 displays information regarding the completion of the assigned subtask, which may include an image or video illustrating how the completion of the assigned subtask should appear.), or when an execution content node of an atomic-type subtask and an execution content node of a next-level atomic-type subtask both exist in the second task state graph, or when an execution content node of a next-level atomic-type subtask exists in the second task state graph, wherein the information snapshot comprises: the execution content nodes; or the execution content nodes and a content dependency relationship among the execution content nodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the method and system of Chatterjee as modified by Pareschi and Grossman, a subtask type of a subtask with creation content information that comprises next-level subtasks is a framework-type subtask, and a subtask type of a subtask with creation content information that does not comprise next-level subtasks is an atomic-type subtask; generating a digital work information snapshot when an execution content node of an atomic-type subtask exists in the second task state graph as taught by Grossman because it “improve[s] subtask assignments that increase personal engagement/interest, produce higher quality work, prevent repetitive strain” (Grossman, [0008]).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee, Pareschi and Jauhar as applied to claim 3 above and in further view of Zubizarreta.
Claim 12: The combination of Chatterjee, Pareschi, and Jauhar discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 3 above. Chatterjee, Pareschi, and Jauhar do not expressly disclose the following limitations but Zubizarreta teaches wherein, when a first subtask is a framework-type subtask and a second subtask depends on the first subtask and one or more other atomic-type subtasks, the step of setting the creation states according to the dependency relationship among the subtasks comprises: if the first creator does not select the first execution content in the first subtask; setting the second subtask to be in the creatable state when all the atomic-type subtasks on which the subtask depends have execution contents; and setting the second subtask to be in the non-creatable state when one of the atomic-type subtasks on which the subtask depends does not have an execution content; or if the first creator selects one or more subtask execution contents in the first subtask; setting the second subtask to be in the creatable state when atomic-type next-level subtasks owned by the one or more selected execution contents all have execution contents and all atomic-type subtasks on which the subtask depends have execution contents; and setting the second subtask to be in the non-creatable state when one of the atomic-type next-level subtasks owned by the one or more selected execution contents does not have an execution content, or one of the atomic-type subtasks on which the subtask depends does not have an execution content (see [0032] The task data 414 may also include data related to task dependencies 420. A particular task may rely on data from previous tasks to be properly performed. Similarly, a particular task may need to be performed before a subsequent task may be properly executed. Task dependency data 420 may identify predecessor and successor tasks of a particular task. Using the dependency data 420 the particular task may be made available for completion when all predecessor tasks are noted as complete. Similarly, a successor task may be made available for completion when the particular task and all other predecessors of the successor task are completed. A particular task (or sub-task) may also include a number of sub-tasks to be performed as part of performance of the particular task. In this way, a one-to-many relationship may exist between a particular task and sub-tasks of the particular task).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chatterjee, Pareschi, and Jauhar with the method of when a first subtask is a framework-type subtask and a second subtask depends on the first subtask and one or more other atomic-type subtasks, the step of setting the creation states according to the dependency relationship among the subtasks comprises: if the first creator does not select the first execution content in the first subtask; setting the second subtask to be in the creatable state when all the atomic-type subtasks on which the subtask depends have execution contents; and setting the second subtask to be in the non-creatable state when one of the atomic-type subtasks on which the subtask depends does not have an execution content; or if the first creator selects one or more subtask execution contents in the first subtask; setting the second subtask to be in the creatable state when atomic-type next-level subtasks owned by the one or more selected execution contents all have execution contents and all atomic-type subtasks on which the subtask depends have execution contents; and setting the second subtask to be in the non-creatable state when one of the atomic-type next-level subtasks owned by the one or more selected execution contents does not have an execution content, or one of the atomic-type subtasks on which the subtask depends does not have an execution content as taught by Zubizarreta because it “provides assurance that tasks are being completed correctly and that changes in task procedures are quickly and accurately communicated to assigned users. Increased visibility of the process also aids in the identification of errors. Because the interdependency among tasks is clearly visible, the effects of an error in one task can be followed downstream to fix the effects of error and upstream to find the source of the error.” (Zubizarreta, [0024]).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee, Pareschi as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Zubizarreta and in further view of Jauhar
Claim 16: The combination of Chatterjee and Pareschi discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above. Chatterjee and Pareschi do not expressly disclose wherein the first execution content and/or the second execution content at least comprises: creation content information, comprising content information input by the first creator for the subtask, but Zubizarreta teaches wherein the first execution content and/or the second execution content at least comprises: creation content information, comprising content information input by the first creator for the subtask, (see [0041]: The accounting data 614 is updated to reflect the data entered by the user 606 in completing the task); creator identity information, generated based on the creator (See [0041]: The task data may be updated to reflect the identity of the user 606 that completed the task).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and system of Chatterjee and Pareschi with the method of the execution content of the subtask at least comprises: creation content information, comprising content information input by the first creator for the subtask, as taught by Zubizarreta in order to track task completion (Zubizarreta, [0036]).
Chatterjee, Pareschi and Zubizarreta do not expressly disclose the following limitations but Jauhar which also discloses task templates teaches, content relationship information, comprising a content attribution relationship which is an attribution relationship between the execution content of the subtask and the subtask, wherein the attribution relationship is configured to indicate that the subtask owns the execution content (See [0019]: As used herein, a task may be comprised of one or more subtasks. In some examples, one subtask is dependent on one or more other subtasks, such that the other subtasks are prerequisites for completing the subtask. In other examples, subtasks are hierarchical, wherein a subtask is further comprised of a set of other constituent subtasks. [0056]: other subtasks may be conditioned on a user selection for each of subtasks 436 and 442. As an example, a different selected meal at subtask 436 may change the ingredients of grocery shopping subtask 438. Similarly, a changed selection at subtask 442 may result in different cooking instructions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chatterjee, Pareschi and Zubizarreta with the method of, content relationship information, comprising a content attribution relationship which is an attribution relationship between the execution content of the subtask and the subtask, wherein the attribution relationship is configured to indicate that the subtask owns the execution content as taught by Jauhar because it would enable the user to adapt the subtasks (Jauhar, [0056]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
…To overcome the aforementioned technical group collaboration dilemma, amended Claim 1 of the present application adds technical solutions of "sole selection" and "task state update" by the second creator through the above amendments. Specifically:
First, a parallel creation mechanism with multiple creators in a group. The first subtask is provided to a plurality of creators in a creator group, each creator independently inputs one piece of created information of a plurality of pieces of created information according to the subtask description information, and the system generates a plurality of execution contents corresponding to the plurality of created information. This enables the system to recognize and record whether a subtask has multiple different versions of execution contents.
Second, a mandatory sole-selection mechanism for subsequent creators. The second creator (i.e., the creator of the subsequent subtask) must select one execution content from the plurality of execution contents as the basis for creation, and the selected execution content is created by a first creator in the group. For execution contents not selected, the system will not set the subsequent subtask to a creatable state.
Third, automatic update the creation state of the subtask in response to selection. In response to receiving the selection by the second creator, the system automatically updates the creation state of the second subtask from a non-creatable state to a creatable state.
These technical features cooperate to form a complete technical route: a plurality of execution contents -- mandatory sole selection -> updating the creation state of the subtask.
In addition, the technical solution of amended Claim 1 is not an abstract concept.
The amended Claim 1 cannot be simulated by pen-and-paper or the human mind, nor is it a "method of organizing human activities." Specifically, human beings cannot achieve:
(1) perceiving the existence of "multiple versions" in real time and mandating selection;
(2) ensuring state consistency when multiple subsequent creators operate simultaneously;
(3) automatically recording version dependency relationships for subsequent assembly and generation of digital work drafts.
These are technical capabilities only possessed by computer systems and cannot be simulated or realized by pen-and-paper or human minds.
The multiple-version competition and sole-selection mechanism of the present application does not instruct people "how to collaborate," but forces the collaboration process to follow a specific technical path through technical means such as state machine control, condition binding, and automatic transition. This is an improvement to the function of the computer system: enabling the computer to manage the complex relationship of "multi-version dependency" and perform "automatic transition/update of task status based on selection."
Furthermore, amended Claim 1 is neither an abstract idea nor a mental process. Specifically, the creation states of the subtasks are automatically configured by the system according to dependency relationships and automatically switched by event triggers, rather than by human judgment; the action of extracting content blocks in the background is triggered based on a viewing request from a user/creator.
None of the above processes can be manually simulated by pen-and-paper or human minds; they belong to unique technical implementations of computer systems and are no longer abstract organization of human activities or mental processes.
Furthermore, amended Claim 1 provides clear technical effects. The clear technical effects are reflected in that the method achieves:
The subsequent creator selects one from multiple execution contents. Conventional manual selection by project managers cannot process massive volumes of such options in bulk, which is achievable with the present invention. The system updates the creation state of the subtask in real time, enabling all subsequent creators to synchronously check whether a subtask is available for creation or not.
These technical effects go beyond the routine functions of a generic computer (storage, display, transmission).
Again, amended Claim 1 is also fundamentally different from the cited prior art references.
However, the examiner is not persuaded. The claim limitations do not recite any technical features that improves the functioning of the computer system. Merely using a computer system in its ordinary capacity to perform the claimed steps does not indicate an improvement. The Specification fails to provide sufficient details of how enabling the computer to manage the complex relationship of "multi-version dependency" and perform "automatic transition/update of task status based on selection improves the functioning of the computer system. The claim limitations at best provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, recited at a high-level of generality which fail to indicate a technical solution.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, “…amended Claim 1 is also fundamentally different from the cited prior art references.” Examiner points out that, “Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.” See MPEP 2106.05 Part I. Examiner maintains that the claims are patent ineligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because new ground of rejection has been made in view of the amendments to the clam limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAAME BALLOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1359. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
MAAME BALLOU
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/MAAME BALLOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights