CTNF 18/843,237 CTNF 80614 DETAILED ACTION This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed August 31, 2024. Applicant’s August 31 st amendment amended claims 1-6 and added new claims 7-18. Claims 1, 5 and 6 are the independent claims. Claims 1-18 are pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 06-11-01 AIA The following title is suggested: Task Management System for Tracking Person in Charge, Responsibility Time Periods and Task Take Overs or the like . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Regarding independent Claims 1, 5, and 6 , the claims are directed to the abstract idea of task assignment. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process). The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, task assignment (task management, human task assignment) (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to revising incomplete task date information, wherein task assignment is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of managing personal behavior or interactions between people. See 2106.04(a). Further all of the steps of “acquiring”, and “revising” recite functions of the task assignment/management are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of managing personal behavior or interactions between people. The intended purpose of independent claims 1, 5 and 6 appears to be to revise/update (fill-in) incomplete task date information. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of managing personal behavior or interactions between people. The exceptions are the person in charge (who is a person) and additional limitations of generic computer elements: device, processor, computer readable recording medium storing instructions. See 2106.04(a). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See 2106.04(a)), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: device, processor, computer readable recording medium storing instructions. These generic computing components are merely used to receive/access, process or display data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 4). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's task assignment/management in the general field of business management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a) regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), Claims 1-18 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited device, processor, computer readable recording medium storing instructions," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the MPEP 2106.04(a), that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process). The claimed steps of revising incomplete date information in an item in the task information all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a device, processor, computer readable recording medium storing instructions nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps acquiring task information is directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic device, processor, computer readable recording medium storing instructions are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of retrieving, processing or displaying data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The 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 do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No). As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the acquiring step that was considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No). The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding dependent claims 2-4 and 7-18 , the claims are directed to the abstract idea of task assignment and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent Claims 1, 5, and 6. Claims 2, 9 and 14 further limit the abstract idea by estimating a task execution frequency (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 3, 10 and 15 further limit the abstract idea by retrieving task information from the revised task information (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 4, 11 and 16 further limit the abstract idea by extracting unfinished tasks of a previous person in charge (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 7, 12 and 17 further limits the abstract idea by generating textual data describing the task for transferring (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 8, 13 and 18 further limit the abstract idea by inserting predetermined value for incomplete task date information (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer. Further regarding Claims 1-18, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a device, processor, computer readable recording medium storing instructions at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 4). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360. Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. device, processor, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine. Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer. Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions. Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a device, processor, computer readable recording medium storing instructions merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 4). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-6, 10, 11-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podgurny et al. U.S. Patent No. 8788375 in view of Amit, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220122025 . Regarding Claims 1, 5 and 6 , Podgurny et al. discloses a system (device, processor) and method comprising: acquiring task information representing work related operations as a task of a person in charge (owner, assignee, etc.) and a responsibility period of the person in charge or the work-related operation (ownership assignment history; Column 37, Lines 65-68; Column 38, Lines 1-5, 55-68; Column 39, Lines 1-20; Figures 15A, 22). While revisining incomplete task data information is old, well-known, routine and conventional (see at least Li et al., U.S. Patent No. 20200226518 Figure 1, Element 185; Claims 5, 6; Paragraph 27) Podgurny et al. does not disclose revising incomplete date information as claimed. Amit, from the same field of endeavor of task management/assignment, discloses a system and method comprising revising incomplete date information in an item of task information using date information included in acquired task information and a responsibility period (Paragraph 131). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Podgurny et al. would have benefited from revising incomplete date information in an item of task information in view of the disclosure of Amit, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Regarding Claims 3, 10 and 15 Podgurny et al. discloses a system and method further comprising retrieving task information from the revised task information wherein the task information comprises a designated person for the person in charge (e.g. ownership history, job assignment table; Figure 22 Element 2028; Figures 11, Element 1112; Figure 15A; Column 37, Lines 65-68; Column 38, Lines 1-5, 55-68; Column 39, Lines 1-20; Column 103, Lines 5-17). Regarding Claims 4, 11 and 16 Podgurny et al. discloses a system and method further comprising extracting unfinished tasks of a previous person in charge (Column 67, Lines 5-15; Column 58, Lines 10-50). Regarding Claims 7, 12 and 17 Podgurny et al. discloses a system and method further comprising generating textual data describing the task for transferring (reassign, stolen, taken) from the person in charge of the task to another person (Column 67, Lines 5-15; Column 58, Lines 10-50). Regarding Claims 8, 13 and 18 Podgurny et al. does not disclose inserting a predetermined value for incomplete date information as claimed. Amit, from the same field of endeavor of task management, discloses a system and method further comprising inserting predetermined value for incomplete task date information (e.g. task estimation; Paragraphs 131; Figures 4, 6) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podgurny et al. U.S. Patent No. 8788375 in view of Amit, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220122025 as applied to the claims above and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210378182 . Regarding Claims 2, 9 and 14 Podgurny et al. does not disclose estimating a task execution frequency as claimed. Xu et al., from the same field of endeavor of task management, discloses a system and method comprising estimating an execution frequency (pace, interval, repetition, etc.) of the task by using a task name and occurrence data included in task information (Paragraphs 47, 48, 56, 57). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Podgurny et al. would have benefited from estimating a task execution frequency in view of the disclosure of Xu et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200226518 discloses a task management/project management system and method comprising identifying and correcting missing task data (Paragraphs 27, 34, 35; Figure 1, Element 175) Tsybulnyk, U.S. Patent No. 11748150 discloses a task management system and method comprising tracking task ownership/assignments over time. Soni, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180152407 discloses a task management system and method including managing task delegation/reassignment. Park et al., U.S. Patent No. 11763261 discloses a task assignment management system and method including reassignment task data and identifying previous worker (DETX 18, 103). Fillinger et al., U.S. Patent No. 11151888 discloses a task management system and method comprising logging of past tasks assigned/delegated to a user (DETX 39). Matsuoka et al. U.S. Patent No. 12555048 discloses a task management system and method comprising tracking historical task delegating data - delegation control for tasks - past history of delegation. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. SCOTT L. JARRETT Primary Examiner Art Unit 3625 /SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/843,237 Page 2 Art Unit: 3625
Prosecution Insights