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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 20, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. The two Chinese Search Reports that were listed on the IDS were not considered by the examiner as there are no submitted copies of the Search Reports that are dated to match the dates listed on the IDS.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 3(a) numeral 31 should be shown as set forth in paragraph [0077] of the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality:
In the Brief Description of the Drawings, Figures 3(a), 3(b), 4(a) and 4(b) should be separately described.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 20 and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 20, line 7, -- and – should be inserted before “determining”.
In claim 32, line 8, -- and – should be inserted before “determining”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 24, line 7, “and/or” is indefinite as to whether it requires sending the notification message to the second software platform.
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 14-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (35 U.S.C. 101 Judicial Exception) without significantly more. Claim 14 recites “displaying… problem description information”, “determining ….a first task corresponding to the problem description information, wherein the first task is used for solving a problem corresponding to the problem description information” and “associating the problem description information with the first task”, which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. Claims 26 and 33 have similar limitations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited user interface and software platforms do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as they are well-understood, routine, conventional computer elements as recognized by the courts.
Based upon consideration of all the relevant factors with respect to the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this determination is explained infra:
The following are Principles of Law:
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof”; 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has consistently held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable; See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, an application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection; See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The test for determining subject matter eligibility requires a first step of determining whether the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claims are directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories, then the Examiner must perform a two-part analysis to determine whether a claim that is directed to a judicial exception recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception. The first part of the second step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second part of the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step in the analysis is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
In the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), the USPTO has prepared revised guidance for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility based upon rulings by the courts.
The Examiner is bound by and applies the framework as set forth by the Court in Mayo and reaffirmed by the Court in Alice and follows the 2019 PEG for determining whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Step 1: Are the claims at issue directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “displaying… problem description information”, “determining ….a first task corresponding to the problem description information, wherein the first task is used for solving a problem corresponding to the problem description information” and “associating the problem description information with the first task” which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application?
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
In determining whether the abstract idea was integrated into a practical application, the Examiner has considered whether there were any limitations indicative of integration into a practical application, such as:
(1) Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; See MPEP § 2106.05(a)
(2) Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; See Vanda Memo (Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals)
(3) Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; See MPEP § 2106.05(b)
(4) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; See MPEP § 2106.05(c)
(5) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; See MPEP § 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The Examiner notes that claim features of: displaying… problem description information”, “determining ….a first task corresponding to the problem description information, wherein the first task is used for solving a problem corresponding to the problem description information” and “associating the problem description information with the first task” does not improve the functioning of a computer or technical field, do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not apply or use a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Instead, the claim features merely generally link the use of the abstract idea to a field of use (See MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Thus, the Examiner finds that the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Is there something else in the claims that ensures that they are directed to significantly more than a patent-ineligible concept?
The claims, as a whole, require nothing significantly more than the generic computer elements. The additional element(s) or combination of element(s) in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than recitation of generic computer structure (e.g., user interface, first software platform, second software platform) that serves to perform generic computer functions (e.g., displaying, associating, responding) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not have a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, nor is it a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts; See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Additionally, claims 15-25 and 27-32 do not add any limitations that incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Chinese document CN 114895997.
Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). The machine translation provided does not identify the inventors.
Claims 14-20 and 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nie et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0271987).
Regarding claim 14, Nie teaches a task association method, including: displaying a first user interface, wherein the first user interface comprises problem description information (See Figures 1-5 where a user enters a to-be-solved problem) and a first control corresponding to the problem description information (See Figure 2, problem 210 is linked to tasks 220 and tasks are acquired based on the input problem), and the first user interface is an interface of a first software platform; in response to an input for the first control, determining, in a second software platform (See Figure 4, tasks 220), a first task corresponding to the problem description information (See Figure 2, task 220-1), wherein the first task is used for solving a problem corresponding to the problem description information (Figure 2, task 220-1 is linked to problem 210); and associating the problem description information with the first task (Figure 2 shows the first task 220-1 is associated with problem 210).
Regarding claim 15, Nie teaches wherein the first control is a creation control (See paragraph [0048], redevelopment system 416 is activated to provide user 402 with a request to indicate a source executable task related to to-be-solved problem 330), and in response to the input for the first control, determining, in the second software platform, the first task corresponding to the problem description information, comprises: in response to an input for the creation control, creating, in the second software platform, the first task corresponding to the problem description information (Paragraph [0049], user 402 may analyze to-be-solved problem 330 and manually determine one or more source executable tasks related to to-be-solved problem 330).
Regarding claim 16, Nie shows wherein in response to the input for the creation control, creating, in the second software platform, the first task corresponding to the problem description information, comprises: in response to the input for the creation control, creating the first task (as manually determined by the user), and displaying an information interface of the first task in the second software platform, acquiring description information of the first task according to the problem description information, and displaying the description information of the first task in the information interface of the first task (Paragraph [0048] redevelopment subsystem 416 may also have a user interface to display this request).
Regarding claim 17, Nie teaches wherein the description information of the first task comprises at least one of the following: a name of the first task, remark information of the first task, a service line of the first task, or a contact person of the first task (Paragraph [0049], redevelopment subsystem 416 can obtain a task description of the one or more source executable tasks related to the to-be solved problem 330, which is input by user 402).
Regarding claim 18, Nie teaches wherein acquiring the description information of the first task according to the problem description information comprises determining target information according to the problem description information (See paragraph [0041], search subsystem 312 may utilize various search techniques to search the solved problems 210) wherein the target information includes at least one of the following information: the key description information, problem details of the problem corresponding to the problem description information, or presenter information of the problem; and determining remark information of the first task according to the target information (Paragraph [0042], search subsystem 312 may acquire, according to the found target solved problem, from knowledge repository 320 a first set of knowledge elements including: a target executable task related to the target solved problem).
Regarding claim 19, Nie teaches wherein the first control is an association control, and in response to the input for the first control, determining, in the second software platform, the first task corresponding to the problem description information, comprises: in response to an input for the association control, determining, in created tasks of the second software platform, the first task corresponding to the problem description information (See Figures 2 and 4 which show the tasks 220 associated with the problem description information 210).
Regarding claim 20, Nie teaches wherein in response to the input for the association control, displaying an associated task search interface (See paragraph [0050] and [0051]), wherein the associated task search interface comprises a search entry; and in response to a search input for the search entry, acquiring search information corresponding to the search input, and determining, in the created tasks of the second software platform, the first task matching the search information, and determining the first task as a task corresponding to the problem description information, wherein the search information comprises a task identifier, or the search information comprises a keyword in the problem description information (i.e., finding the task is based on the task description, that is keywords describing the task).
Regarding claims 26-32, these claims are the device claims corresponding to method claims 14-20 above, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 33, this claim is the computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to method claim 14 above, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0271987) in view of Levi (International Publication Number WO 01/25998).
Regarding claim 21, Nie teaches acquiring a task identifier of the first task, but does not specify state information of the first task. Levi teaches that it is known in the art to have action items associated with a problem wherein the action items (or tasks) have state information (See the summary of the invention and Figure 7, “Update Action Item/Status”). Levi shows in Figure 8 that all the information is stored in database (60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to provide the tasks of Nie with status or state information as taught by Levi. The rationale is as follows: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art provide the tasks of Nie with status or state information as taught by Levi so that the user in Nie is kept current on the status of the tasks related to the “to-be-solved problem” of Nie.
Regarding claim 22, Levi further teaches problem state information corresponding to the problem description information (i.e. open issue list, work-in-progress list, closed issue list); and wherein correspondingly storing the task identifier, the state information and the problem description information in the database comprises: updating the problem state information in the first user interface according to the state information of the first task (See Figure 7, “Update Action Item/Status”). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to provide the problem of Nie with updated problem status or state information as taught by Levi. The rationale is as follows: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to update the state information of the problem in Nie as taught by Levi so that the user in Nie is kept current on the state of the problem.
Regarding claim 23, Nie does not specify sending, by the second software platform, the task identifier of the first task and the state information of the first task to the first software platform in a webpage callback manner. Levi teaches that the problem is input to a web site (50) and that after the action items and issues are resolved that the user is notified (i.e., in a webpage callback manner). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to provide the user of Nie with a website interface to input the problem, and a webpage callback manner to update the status to the user as taught by Levi, since this is a known method for a user to input a problem and to receive updates on the solutions to the problem.
Regarding claim 24, Levi further teaches wherein the method further comprises in a case where the state information of the first task is updated from indicating an uncompleted state to indicating a completed state, updating the problem state information from indicating an uncompleted state to indicating a completed state (See page 32 of Levi, technical administrator 220 updates a selected open issue with action items and status information regarding the resolution of the selected open issue, and Figure 7 where an issue moves from a work-in-progress status to a closed status). It would have been obvious to combine Nie and Levi for the same reasons set forth above in regard to claim 22.
Regarding claim 25, Levi further teaches problem state information corresponding to the problem description information, the problem state information indicates a to-be-processed state (i.e. open issue list), and the method further comprises: after associating the problem description information with the first task, updating the problem state information from the to-be-processed state to a being-optimized state (i.e. work-in-progress list). It would have been obvious to combine Nie and Levi for the same reasons set forth above in regard to claim 22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kiss et al (U.S. Patent 6,484,155) is cited to show a knowledge management system that organizes problem statements into a set of tasks.
Barnard et al (U.S. Patent 7,437,304) is cited to show templates of tasks.
Azcona Rivas (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0225163) and Farquhar et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0405094) are cited to show connected platforms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R KORZUCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7589. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00.
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.
/WILLIAM R KORZUCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights