DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the Preliminary Amendments of the Application 18/866,470 filed on 11/15/2024.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 12-13, 15-16 have been amended.
Claim 14 has been canceled.
Claims 17-21 have been added.
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
The action is made NON-FINAL.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears to have a typo - "wherein the . Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter) since the claimed invention falls into “a process” (a method for view drawing), “a machine” (an electronic device for view drawing), and “an article of manufacture” (a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for view drawing) categories.
Regarding Claims 1-13 and 15-21, the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
A view drawing method, comprising:
in response to detecting that … is triggered, obtaining a target filtering condition;
determining target to-be-processed data from project management data corresponding to a target user based on the target filtering condition, wherein the project management data comprises to-be-processed data corresponding to at least one project, and the to-be-processed data comprises project personnel information; and
generating a personnel scheduling view based on a target project personnel identifier and schedule information corresponding to the target project personnel identifier in the target to-be-processed data.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 1 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as business relations and “Mental Processes” for concepts performed in the human mind such as observation and evaluation. For instance, a person can input to-be-processed data manually, and a person can manually draw the view based on the to-be-processed data (See Background section of the specification). Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites one additional element – “a view drawing control”. This additional element represents mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, alone and in combination, 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does 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, this additional element represents mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 5-7, and 9 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein the target filtering condition comprises at least one of a project name, a time period, a schedule user, a user identifier, and a role type” in Claim 2, by defining “wherein generating the personnel scheduling view based on the target project personnel identifier and the schedule information corresponding to the target project personnel identifier in the target to-be-processed data comprises: obtaining the target project personnel identifier and the schedule information in the target to-be-processed data; taking date information as a column header of the personnel scheduling view, and taking at least one target project personnel identifier as a row header of the personnel scheduling view; and generating the personnel scheduling view based on the row header, the column header and the schedule information” in Claim 5, by defining “wherein the row header further comprises: the total number of projects in which target project personnel participate, a total duration of the schedule information, and the number of unscheduled projects” in Claim 6, by defining “wherein a page to which the personnel scheduling view belongs further comprises the total number of target project personnel and a project identifier of a project to which the target project personnel belong” in Claim 7, and by defining “wherein each piece of schedule information in the personnel scheduling view is represented in a Gantt chart form” in Claim 9.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3-4, 8, and 10-13 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein the method further comprises: after detecting … being triggered and before obtaining the target filtering condition, in response to detecting that a personnel scheduling control on … is triggered, …, wherein the filtering condition editing page comprises at least one …; and obtaining text content edited in the at least one …, and generating the target filtering condition based on the text content” in Claim 3, by defining “further comprising: in response to detecting that … corresponding to the personnel scheduling control is triggered, …; and displaying a collected personnel scheduling view based on a triggering operation for the at least one collected personnel scheduling view option” in Claim 4, by defining “further comprising: in response to detecting …, determining the number of displayed rows of each piece of row data in the personnel scheduling view based on a total duration or the total number of projects corresponding to a row header in the personnel scheduling view, so as to update the personnel scheduling view” in Claim 8, by defining “wherein a head of the Gantt chart is provided with …, and … is displayed differently from the Gantt chart; wherein at least one project requirement is shown in a folded manner in …” in Claim 10, by defining “further comprising: in response to detecting that … is triggered, displaying the folded at least one project requirement; wherein schedule information corresponding to the at least one project requirement is represented based on a Gantt chart form” in Claim 11, by defining “further comprising: in response to detecting that …, determining a target project corresponding to the Gantt chart and a target schedule corresponding to the target position; and updating a project execution flow corresponding to the target project based on the target schedule; wherein the target position and the current position belong to a same target project personnel identifier, and the target position is not scheduled” in Claim 12, and by defining “further comprising: in response to detecting that a Gantt chart is dragged from a current position to a target position and the target position and the current position not belonging to a same target user identifier, determining a target project corresponding to the Gantt chart, and a target user identifier corresponding to the target position; and updating a project execution flow corresponding to the target project based on the Gantt chart and the target user identifier” in Claim 13.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 3-4, 8, and 11-13 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 3 recites additional elements – “the view drawing control”, “a display interface”, “popping up a filtering condition editing page”, and “editing control”, Claim 4 recites additional elements – “a folding control” and “unfolding at least one collected personnel scheduling view option that is hidden from display”, Claim 8 recites an additional element – “a sort control”, Claim 10 recites an additional element – “a suspended window control”, Claim 11 recites an additional element – “the suspended window control”, Claim 12 recites an additional element – “a Gantt chart is dragged from a current position to a target position”, and Claim 13 recites an additional element – “a Gantt chart is dragged from a current position to a target position”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, alone 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.
Step 2B: Claims 3-4, 8, and 10-13 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 3-4, 8, and 10-13 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 to no more than mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites the following limitations:
… to perform acts comprising:
in response to detecting that … is triggered, obtaining a target filtering condition;
determining target to-be-processed data from project management data corresponding to a target user based on the target filtering condition, wherein the project management data comprises to-be-processed data corresponding to at least one project, and the to-be-processed data comprises project personnel information; and
generating a personnel scheduling view based on a target project personnel identifier and schedule information corresponding to the target project personnel identifier in the target to-be-processed data.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 15 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as business relations and “Mental Processes” for concepts performed in the human mind such as observation and evaluation. For instance, a person can input to-be-processed data manually, and a person can manually draw the view based on the to-be-processed data (See Background section of the specification). Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 15 recites additional elements – “an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and a storage device configured to store one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processor” and “a view drawing control”. The additional element “a view drawing control” in the claim limitation represents mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of obtaining, determining, and generating a personal scheduling view by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a view drawing process (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 15 does 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 of using a computer system to perform a view drawing process amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 17 and 20-21 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 15 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 15 such as by defining “wherein the target filtering condition comprises at least one of a project name, a time period, a schedule user, a user identifier, and a role type” in Claim 17, by defining “wherein generating the personnel scheduling view based on the target project personnel identifier and the schedule information corresponding to the target project personnel identifier in the target to-be-processed data comprises: obtaining the target project personnel identifier and the schedule information in the target to-be-processed data; taking date information as a column header of the personnel scheduling view, and taking at least one target project personnel identifier as a row header of the personnel scheduling view; and generating the personnel scheduling view based on the row header, the column header and the schedule information” in Claim 20, and by defining “wherein a page to which the personnel scheduling view belongs further comprises the total number of target project personnel and a project identifier of a project to which the target project personnel belong” in Claim 21.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 18 and 19 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 15 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 15 such as by defining “wherein the method further comprises: after detecting … being triggered and before obtaining the target filtering condition, in response to detecting that a personnel scheduling control on … is triggered, …, wherein the filtering condition editing page comprises at least one …; and obtaining text content edited in the at least one …, and generating the target filtering condition based on the text content” in Claim 18 and by defining “wherein the acts further comprise: in response to detecting that … corresponding to the personnel scheduling control is triggered, …; and displaying a collected personnel scheduling view based on a triggering operation for the at least one collected personnel scheduling view option” in Claim 19.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 18 and 19 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 18 recites additional elements – “the view drawing control”, “a display interface”, “popping up a filtering condition editing page”, and “editing control”, and Claim 19 recites additional elements – “a folding control” and “unfolding at least one collected personnel scheduling view option that is hidden from display”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, alone 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.
Step 2B: Claims 18 and 19 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 18 and 19 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 to no more than mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 16 recites the following limitations:
… to perform acts comprising:
in response to detecting that … is triggered, obtaining a target filtering condition;
determining target to-be-processed data from project management data corresponding to a target user based on the target filtering condition, wherein the project management data comprises to-be-processed data corresponding to at least one project, and the to-be-processed data comprises project personnel information; and
generating a personnel scheduling view based on a target project personnel identifier and schedule information corresponding to the target project personnel identifier in the target to-be-processed data.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 16 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as business relations and “Mental Processes” for concepts performed in the human mind such as observation and evaluation. For instance, a person can input to-be-processed data manually, and a person can manually draw the view based on the to-be-processed data (See Background section of the specification). Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 16 recites additional elements – “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor” and “a view drawing control”. The additional element “a view drawing control” in the claim limitation represents mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of obtaining, determining, and generating a personal scheduling view by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a view drawing process (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 16 does 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 of using a computer system to perform a view drawing process amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pope et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2012/0116835 A1; hereinafter "Pope") in view of Kang et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2019/0050811 A1; hereinafter "Kang").
Regarding Claim 1, Pope teaches a view drawing method, comprising: in response to detecting that a view drawing control is triggered, obtaining a target filtering condition; determining target to-be-processed data from project management data corresponding to a target user based on the target filtering condition, wherein the project management data comprises to-be-processed data corresponding to at least one project, and the to-be-processed data comprises project personnel information (See Fig. 3, “The project associated with the task board is identified in project box 306, which may be a selectable drop-down menu style box or a textual entry box to enable users to select different projects. Summary tasks 308 and 310 are listed in the first property column 312 hierarchically distinguished from the tasks (or sub-tasks) in the same column. Other tasks for each summary task are displayed in their respective columns 314 and 316 following the same hierarchical tree scheme.” in Paragraph [0032], “Users may be enabled to move tasks through a click and drag operation using an input device such as a mouse, through a user interface control element on the browser page associated with modifying task properties, through a drop-down or hover-on style control menu, or comparable controls (e.g. touch or keyboard based interactions). For example, controls for modifying task position may be activated by right-clicking or double-clicking on each task. In addition to modifying task positions, the controls may be used to present detailed data such as schedule, resources, designated person, or other project management views associated with the respective tasks.” in Paragraph [0035], “The task board application may visualize and track tasks enabling users to move tasks across columns and rows indicating property changes and regroupings, respectively. Upon detecting a move of a task across columns indicating a change of task property, the task board application may update relevant properties associated with the task/its parent task/its dependent children tasks and provide them to the project management application for re-computation of appropriate aspects of the project. Upon detecting a move across rows, the task board application may update a project hierarchy of tasks reflecting the new grouping such that critical path and other computations for the overall project may be updated by the project management application.” in Paragraph [0038], and “Task board module 524 may generate, update, and display a task board based on project data from the project management application 522. Task board module 524 may further update project management application specific attributes of tasks upon detecting changes of property or change of grouping among the tasks by user action as discussed previously.” in Paragraph [0042]).
Pope does not explicitly teach; however, Kang teaches generating a personnel scheduling view based on a target project personnel identifier and schedule information corresponding to the target project personnel identifier in the target to-be-processed data (See Figs. 1-5, “Disclosed embodiments provide a temporally condensed view of outstanding discrete actions based on a filter date.” in Paragraph [0022], “In embodiments, when a user, via a desktop client or mobile client requests a temporally condensed view, a request may be sent from the mobile/desktop client to the project management computer. The request may include a project identifier, a filter date, and other associated information. The processor 606 executes instructions to specify uncompleted discrete actions for the project associated with the project identifier. The project identifier may be a unique alphanumeric code used to reference the project data within the database. In embodiments, the database may be a structured query language (SQL) database. In embodiments, the processor 606 then executes a rendering process that renders the discrete actions for each subtask in an adjacent arrangement, and does not include chronological gaps between the discrete actions, even though chronological gaps may exist in the calendar. As an example, the chronological gaps shown in FIG. 1 (example, 117 and 118) are removed in the temporally condensed view 200 of FIG. 2.” in Paragraph [0039], and “FIG. 3 shows an exemplary temporally condensed view 300 showing additional information in accordance with embodiments of the present invention. Similar, to the temporally condensed view 200 of FIG. 2, the temporally condensed view 300 includes multiple columns, indicated as 301, 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, 312, and 314. Similarly, the temporally condensed view 300 includes multiple rows, indicated as 341, 342, 344, 346, and 348. The filter date field 324 is also set to refer to week W3. In this example, the user has moved the mouse cursor 352 over a particular discrete action to obtain additional information. In embodiments, this operates similar to a tool tip. When the user mouses over the cell for discrete action DA 1.4.2 at row 348 column 304, additional information 354 is displayed. The information may include a project name, a project number, an item number, an owner organization, an actionee, an estimated completion date, and/or a description. Other fields are possible.” in Paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Pope to include generating a personnel scheduling view based on a target project personnel identifier and schedule information corresponding to the target project personnel identifier in the target to-be-processed data, as taught by Kang, in order to allow project managers the ability to quickly and accurately assess outstanding tasks, something which is a key aspect of successful project management (See Paragraph [0022] of Kang).
Claim 16 is a product claim corresponding to method Claim 1. All of the limitations in Claim 16 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations in Claim 1. Accordingly, Claim 16 is considered obvious (rejection) by the same rationales presented in the rejection of Claim 1, respectively set forth above.
Regarding Claim 2, Pope in view of Kang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Pope also teaches wherein the target filtering condition comprises at least one of a project name, a time period, a schedule user, a user identifier, and a role type (See “The project associated with the task board is identified in project box 306, which may be a selectable drop-down menu style box or a textual entry box to enable users to select different projects.” in Paragraph [0032], “Users may be enabled to move tasks by a click and drag operation, through a property selection, or comparable user interface actions.” in Paragraph [0048], and “Thus, related properties (e.g., start/finish dates/times, duration, related task properties, etc.) may be updated at operation 660.” in Paragraph [0049]).
Regarding Claim 3, Pope in view of Kang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Pope also teaches after detecting the view drawing control being triggered and before obtaining the target filtering condition, in response to detecting that a personnel scheduling control on a display interface is triggered, popping up a filtering condition editing page, wherein the filtering condition editing page comprises at least one editing control; and obtaining text content edited in the at least one editing control, and generating the target filtering condition based on the text content (See “Browser 300 includes conventional browser controls 302 (graphical and/or textual control elements). The displayed web page includes a title 304 identifying the task board. The example task board displays the stories or summary tasks within first property column 312 "Not Started." The project associated with the task board is identified in project box 306, which may be a selectable drop-down menu style box or a textual entry box to enable users to select different projects.” in Paragraph [0032], “The tasks on browser 300 are displayed using graphical objects with textual identification. A coloring or shading scheme may be employed to further identify a property of each task (e.g., a sub-property such as percentage for "In Progress" tasks). Some or all of the displayed elements may be actionable providing links to controls associated with setting or modifying parameters associated with the tasks or modifying view settings. Additional actions that may be initiated through the objects representing tasks may include, but are not limited to, editing, ...” in Paragraph [0033], and “Users may be enabled to move tasks through a click and drag operation using an input device such as a mouse, through a user interface control element on the browser page associated with modifying task properties, through a drop-down or hover-on style control menu, or comparable controls (e.g. touch or keyboard based interactions). For example, controls for modifying task position may be activated by right-clicking or double-clicking on each task. In addition to modifying task positions, the controls may be used to present detailed data such as schedule, resources, designated person, or other project management views associated with the respective tasks.” in Paragraph [0035]).
Regarding Claim 4, Pope in view of Kang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Pope does not explicitly teach; however, Kang teaches in response to detecting that a folding control corresponding to the personnel scheduling control is triggered, unfolding at least one collected personnel scheduling view option that is hidden from display; and displaying a collected personnel scheduling view based on a triggering operation for the at least one collected personnel scheduling view option (See “FIG. 3 shows an exemplary temporally condensed view 300 showing additional information in accordance with embodiments of the present invention. Similar, to the temporally condensed view 200 of FIG. 2, the temporally condensed view 300 includes multiple columns, indicated as 301, 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, 312, and 314. Similarly, the temporally condensed view 300 includes multiple rows, indicated as 341, 342, 344, 346, and 348. The filter date field 324 is also set to refer to week W3. In this example, the user has moved the mouse cursor 352 over a particular discrete action to obtain additional information. In embodiments, this operates similar to a tool tip. When the user mouses over the cell for discrete action DA 1.4.2 at row 348 column 304, additional information 354 is displayed. The information may include a project name, a project number, an item number, an owner organization, an actionee, an estimated completion date, and/or a description.” in Paragraph [0029] and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Pope to include in response to detecting that a folding control corresponding to the personnel scheduling control is triggered, unfolding at least one collected personnel scheduling view option that is hidden from display and displaying a collected personnel scheduling view based on a triggering operation for the at least one collected personnel scheduling view option, as taught by Kang, in order to allow project managers the ability to quickly and accurately assess outstanding tasks, something which is a key aspect of successful project management (See Paragraph [0022] of Kang).
Regarding Claim 5, Pope in view of Kang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Pope does not explicitly teach; however, Kang teaches wherein generating the personnel scheduling view based on the target project personnel identifier and the schedule information corresponding to the target project personnel identifier in the target to-be processed data comprises: obtaining the target project personnel identifier and the schedule information in the target to-be-processed data; taking date information as a column header of the personnel scheduling view, and taking at least one target project personnel identifier as a row header of the personnel scheduling view; and generating the personnel scheduling view based on the row header, the column header and the schedule information (See Figs. 1 & 2, “FIG. 1 shows an exemplary project calendar layout 100. The calendar layout 100 includes multiple columns, indicated as 101, 102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, and 114. Similarly, the calendar layout 100 includes multiple rows, indicated as 141, 142, 144, 146, and 148. Column 101 shows various project items including a task (indicated at row 141 and column 101), and multiple subtasks (indicated at column 101 in rows 142, 144, 146, and 148).” in Paragraph [0023], “Row 141, starting at column 102, shows various weeks of a project. For example, at row 141 column 102 is week W1, at row 141 column 104 is week W2, etc. While seven weeks (W1-W7) are shown in this example, in practice, a long and complex project can continue for many months or years. Thus, in practice there can be many more weeks than what is illustrated in FIG. 1. A project is comprised of one or more tasks. For each task, there are one or more subtasks defined. For each subtask, there is one or more discrete actions (DA) defined. Thus, there is a hierarchy of project, task, subtask, and discrete action. In some embodiments, the default calendar layout is in days, and being able to show weeks, months, quarters, and/or years as desired. Other, user-defined time units are possible. For example, if a user prefers a two-week unit of time (e.g. for an Agile sprint in software development), the user can establish a customized time unit of two weeks to match their business/development practices.” in Paragraph [0024], “FIG. 2 shows an exemplary temporally condensed view 200 of the project calendar layout of FIG. 1 in accordance with embodiments of the present invention. The temporally condensed view 200 includes multiple columns, indicated as 201, 202, 204, 206, 208, 210, 212, and 214. Similarly, the temporally condensed view 200 includes multiple rows, indicated as 241, 242, 244, 246, and 248. A filter date field 224 allows a user to enter a date for the starting point of the temporally compressed view. In the example, the user has selected the present date, which refers to week W3. Thus, for the purposes of the examples described herein, the current week is week W3. Since, the user selected week W3, the discrete actions shown are discrete actions that are not complete as of W3. Thus, referring again to FIG. 1, discrete action DA 1.1.1 for row 142 column 104 is not rendered in temporally condensed view 200, since that discrete action was completed in week W2. Furthermore, the gaps shown in project calendar layout 100 are removed in the temporally condensed view 200. For example, in temporally condensed view 200, discrete action DA 1.1.2 in row 242 column 202 is rendered directly adjacent to discrete action DA 1.1.3 in row 242 column 204. The gaps (shown as 117 and 118 in FIG. 1) are removed, thus creating the temporally condensed view. Similarly, for subtask 1.4 in row 248, discrete action DA 1.4.1 is rendered adjacent to discrete action DA 1.4.2... Each task, subtask, and discrete action may be assigned a unique number that is used for identification and tracking of that item.” in Paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Pope to include obtaining the target project personnel identifier and the schedule information in the target to-be-processed data; taking date information as a column header of the personnel scheduling view, and taking at least one target project personnel identifier as a row header of the personnel scheduling view; and generating the personnel scheduling view based on the row header, the column header and the schedule information, as taught by Kang, in order to allow project managers the ability to quickly and accurately assess outstanding tasks, something which is a key aspect of successful project management (See Paragraph [0022] of Kang).
Regarding Claim 6, Pope in view of Kang teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 5 as described above. Pope does not explicitly teach; however, Kang teaches wherein the row header further comprises: the total number of projects in which target project personnel participate, a total duration of the schedule information, and the number of unscheduled projects (See Fig. 3 and “FIG. 3 shows an exemplary temporally condensed view 300 showing additional information in accordance with embodiments of the present invention. Similar, to the temporally condensed view 200 of FIG. 2, the temporally condensed view 300 includes multiple columns, indicated as 301, 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, 312, and 314. Similarly, the temporally condensed view 300 includes multiple rows, indicated as 341, 342, 344, 346, and 348. The filter date field 324 is also set to refer to week W3. In this example, the user has moved the mouse cursor 352 over a particular discrete action to obtain additional information. In embodiments, this operates similar to a tool tip. When the user mouses over the cell for discrete action DA 1.4.2 at row 348 column 304, additional information 354 is displayed. The information may include a project name, a project number, an item number, an owner organization, an actionee, an estimated completion date, and/or a description. Other fields are possible.” in Paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Pope to include wherein the row header further comprises: the total number of projects in which target project personnel participate, a total duration of the schedule information, and the number of unscheduled projects, the column header and the schedule information, as taught by Kang, in order to allow project managers the ability to quickly and accurately assess outstanding tasks, something which is a key aspect of successful project management (See Paragraph [0022] of Kang).
Regarding Claim 7, Pope in view of Kang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Pope also teaches wherein a page to which the personnel scheduling view belongs further comprises the total number of target project personnel and a project identifier of a project to which the target project personnel belong (See “Browser 300 includes conventional browser controls 302 (graphical and/or textual control elements). The displayed web page includes a title 304 identifying the task board. The example task board displays the stories or summary tasks within first property column 312 "Not Started." The project associated with the task board is identified in project box 306, which may be a selectable drop-down menu style box or a textual entry box to enable users to select different projects. Summary tasks 308 and 310 are listed in the first property column 312 hierarchically distinguished from the tasks (or sub-tasks) in the same column. Other tasks for each summary task are displayed in their respective columns 314 and 316 following the same hierarchical tree scheme.” in Paragraph [0032], “A task in a project management application may be associated with several fields such as Name, Start, Finish, Percent Complete, and similar ones, where information about the task is stored. Project management applications often use these fields to display interesting views about data, for example, a task in a Gantt chart may have an indicator that uses the Percent Complete field to draw a certain way.” in Paragraph [0027], and Fig. 3).
Claims 15 and 17-21 are system claims corresponding to method Claim 1-5 and 7. All of the limitations in Claims 15 and 17-21 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations in Claims 1-5 and 7. Accordingly, Claims 15 and 17-21 are considered obvious (rejection) by the same rationales presented in the rejection of Claims 1-5 and 7, respectively set forth above.
Regarding Claim 8, Pope in view of Kang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Pope also teaches in response to detecting a sort control, determining the number of displayed rows of each piece of row data in the personnel scheduling view based on a total duration or the total number of projects corresponding to a row header in the personnel scheduling view, so as to update the personnel scheduling view (See Figs. 2 & 3, “Browser 300 includes conventional browser controls 302 (graphical and/or textual control elements). The displayed web page includes a title 304 identifying the task board. The example task board displays the stories or summary tasks within first property column 312 "Not Started." The project associated with the task board is identified in project box 306, which may be a selectable drop-down menu style box or a textual entry box to enable users to select different projects. Summary tasks 308 and 310 are listed in the first property column 312 hierarchically distinguished from the tasks (or sub-tasks) in the same column. Other tasks for each summary task are displayed in their respective columns 314 and 316 following the same hierarchical tree scheme.” in Paragraph [0032], and “At decision operation 630, a determination may be made whether the move is a column change and/or a row change (e.g. a diagonal drag). If the move is a column change, it indicates a property change for the moved task(s). Thus, related properties (e.g., start/finish dates/times, duration, related task properties, etc.) may be updated at operation 660. If the move is a row change, it indicates a regrouping of tasks (i.e., the moved task being associated with a new summary task). In that case, the project hierarchy associated with the moved task may be updated at operation 640. Optionally, properties such as those listed above may also be updated at operation 650 (e.g., if the regrouping affects durations of individual tasks or a summary task). The updates from operations 660 and 650 may be provided to an underlying project management application at operation 670 such that appropriate aspects of the project can be re-computed, analyses updated, and visualizations modified.” in Paragraph [0049]).
Regarding Claim 9, Pope in view of Kang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Pope also teaches wherein each piece of schedule information in the personnel scheduling view is represented in a Gantt chart form (See “A project management application may enable users to create critical path schedules and resource allocations in a manual, automated, or semi-automated manner. Such an application may compile data, analyze scenarios, and visualize various aspects of projects such as schedules, resource allocations, and similar ones using visual tools like Gantt charts, ...” in Paragraph [0018], “Diagram 200 illustrates a conceptual project view 204 within a project management application user interface 202 (e.g., a Gantt chart).” in Paragraph [0025], and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Pope in view of Kang teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 9 as described above. Pope also teaches wherein a head of the Gantt chart is provided with a suspended window control, and the suspended window control is displayed differently from the Gantt chart (See Fig. 2, “Diagram 200 illustrates a conceptual project view 204 within a project management application user interface 202 (e.g., a Gantt chart). Task board 214 within task board application 212's user interface reflects a task board view of selected (or all) tasks from the same project displayed by project management user interface 202. the tasks are displayed in grid format on task board 214 with rows corresponding to summary tasks (or stories) and columns representing states of tasks (e.g., "To Do", "Not Started", "In Progress", "Completed", "Abandoned", etc.). The tasks themselves may be represented as graphical objects (e.g., icons, boxes, circles, etc.), textual objects (e.g., simple text), or combinations of those. A variety of textual, graphical, coloring, shading schemes may be employed to emphasize different aspects of the tasks. Furthermore, the objects representing the tasks may be actionable providing links to operations associated with the tasks such as modification of task properties, viewing parameters, and so on.” in Paragraph [0025], and “A task in a project management application may be associated with several fields such as Name, Start, Finish, Percent Complete, and similar ones, where information about the task is stored. Project management applications often use these fields to display interesting views about data, for example, a task in a Gantt chart may have an indicator that uses the Percent Complete field to draw a certain way.” in Paragraph [0027]).
Pope does not explicitly teach; however, Kang teaches wherein at least one project requirement is shown in a folded manner in the suspended window control (See “FIG. 3 shows an exemplary temporally condensed view 300 showing additional information in accordance with embodiments of the present invention. Similar, to the temporally condensed view 200 of FIG. 2, the temporally condensed view 300 includes multiple columns, indicated as 301, 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, 312, and 314. Similarly, the temporally condensed view 300 includes multiple rows, indicated as 341, 342, 344, 346, and 348. The filter date field 324 is also set to refer to week W3. In this example, the user has moved the mouse cursor 352 over a particular discrete action to obtain additional information. In embodiments, this operates similar to a tool tip. When the user mouses over the cell for discrete action DA 1.4.2 at row 348 column 304, additional information 354 is displayed. The information may include a project name, a project number, an item number, an owner organization, an actionee, an estimated completion date, and/or a description. Other fields are possible.” in Paragraph [0029] and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Pope to include wherein at least one project requirement is shown in a folded manner in the suspended window control, as taught by Kang, in order to allow project managers the ability to quickly and accurately assess outstanding tasks, something which is a key aspect of successful project management (See Paragraph [0022] of Kang).
Regarding Claim 11, Pope in view of Kang teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 9, and 10 as described above. Pope also teaches wherein schedule information corresponding to the at least one project requirement is represented based on a Gantt chart form (See Fig. 2, “Diagram 200 illustrates a conceptual project view 204 within a project management application user interface 202 (e.g., a Gantt chart). Task board 214 within task board application 212's user interface reflects a task board view of selected (or all) tasks from the same project displayed by project management user interface 202. the tasks are displayed in grid format on task board 214 with rows corresponding to summary tasks (or stories) and columns representing states of tasks (e.g., "To Do", "Not Started", "In Progress", "Completed", "Abandoned", etc.). The tasks themselves may be represented as graphical objects (e.g., icons, boxes, circles, etc.), textual objects (e.g., simple text), or combinations of those. A variety of textual, graphical, coloring, shading schemes may be employed to emphasize different aspects of the tasks. Furthermore, the objects representing the tasks may be actionable providing links to operations associated with the tasks such as modification of task properties, viewing parameters, and so on.” in Paragraph [0025], and “A task in a project management application may be associated with several fields such as Name, Start, Finish, Percent Complete, and similar ones, where information about the task is stored. Project management applications often use these fields to display interesting views about data, for example, a task in a Gantt chart may have an indicator that uses the Percent Complete field to draw a certain way.” in Paragraph [0027]).
Pope does not explicitly teach; however, Kang teaches in response to detecting that the suspended window control is triggered, displaying the folded at least one project requirement (See “FIG. 3 shows an exemplary temporally condensed view 300 showing additional information in accordance with embodiments of the present invention. Similar, to the temporally condensed view 200 of FIG. 2, the temporally condensed view 300 includes multiple columns, indicated as 301, 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, 312, and 314. Similarly, the temporally condensed view 300 includes multiple rows, indicated as 341, 342, 344, 346, and 348. The filter date field 324 is also set to refer to week W3. In this example, the user has moved the mouse cursor 352 over a particular discrete action to obtain additional information. In embodiments, this operates similar to a tool tip. When the user mouses over the cell for discrete action DA 1.4.2 at row 348 column 304, additional information 354 is displayed. The information may include a project name, a project number, an item number, an owner organization, an actionee, an estimated completion date, and/or a description. Other fields are possible.” in Paragraph [0029] and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Pope to include in response to detecting that the suspended window control is triggered, displaying the folded at least one project requirement, as taught by Kang, in order to allow project managers the ability to quickly and accurately assess outstanding tasks, something which is a key aspect of successful project management (See Paragraph [0022] of Kang).
Regarding Claim 12, Pope in view of Kang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Pope also teaches in response to detecting that a Gantt chart is dragged from a current position to a target position, determining a target project corresponding to the Gantt chart and a target schedule corresponding to the target position; and updating a project execution flow corresponding to the target project based on the target schedule; wherein the target position and the current position belong to a same target project personnel identifier, and the target position is not scheduled (See Fig. 2, “Diagram 200 illustrates a conceptual project view 204 within a project management application user interface 202 (e.g., a Gantt chart). Task board 214 within task board application 212's user interface reflects a task board view of selected (or all) tasks from the same project displayed by project management user interface 202. the tasks are displayed in grid format on task board 214 with rows corresponding to summary tasks (or stories) and columns representing states of tasks (e.g., "To Do", "Not Started", "In Progress", "Completed", "Abandoned", etc.). The tasks themselves may be represented as graphical objects (e.g., icons, boxes, circles, etc.), textual objects (e.g., simple text), or combinations of those. A variety of textual, graphical, coloring, shading schemes may be employed to emphasize different aspects of the tasks. Furthermore, the objects representing the tasks may be actionable providing links to operations associated with the tasks such as modification of task properties, viewing parameters, and so on.” in Paragraph [0025], “In a system according to embodiments, a user may be enabled to modify the task board by moving one or more tasks across columns and/or rows as illustrated by the modified task board 224 on task board application user interface 222. The task 226 identified as "Task 1.2" has been moved from "State 1" column to "State 3" column. For example, "State 1" may be "Not Started" column and "State 3" may be "Completed" column indicating that the moved task has been completed.” in Paragraph [0026], “A task in a project management application may be associated with several fields such as Name, Start, Finish, Percent Complete, and similar ones, where information about the task is stored. Project management applications often use these fields to display interesting views about data, for example, a task in a Gantt chart may have an indicator that uses the Percent Complete field to draw a certain way.” in Paragraph [0027], “Users may be enabled to move tasks through a click and drag operation using an input device such as a mouse, through a user interface control element on the browser page associated with modifying task properties, through a drop-down or hover-on style control menu, or comparable controls (e.g. touch or keyboard based interactions).” in Paragraph [0035], and “At decision operation 630, a determination may be made whether the move is a column change and/or a row change (e.g. a diagonal drag). If the move is a column change, it indicates a property change for the moved task(s). Thus, related properties (e.g., start/finish dates/times, duration, related task properties, etc.) may be updated at operation 660. If the move is a row change, it indicates a regrouping of tasks (i.e., the moved task being associated with a new summary task). In that case, the project hierarchy associated with the moved task may be updated at operation 640. Optionally, properties such as those listed above may also be updated at operation 650 (e.g., if the regrouping affects durations of individual tasks or a summary task). The updates from operations 660 and 650 may be provided to an underlying project management application at operation 670 such that appropriate aspects of the project can be re-computed, analyses updated, and visualizations modified.” in Paragraph [0049]).
Regarding Claim 13, Pope in view of Kang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Pope also teaches in response to detecting that a Gantt chart is dragged from a current position to a target position and the target position and the current position not belonging to a same target user identifier, determining a target project corresponding to the Gantt chart, and a target user identifier corresponding to the target position; and updating a project execution flow corresponding to the target project based on the Gantt chart and the target user identifier (See “A task in a project management application may be associated with several fields such as Name, Start, Finish, Percent Complete, and similar ones, where information about the task is stored. Project management applications often use these fields to display interesting views about data, for example, a task in a Gantt chart may have an indicator that uses the Percent Complete field to draw a certain way.” in Paragraph [0027], “Users may be enabled to move tasks through a click and drag operation using an input device such as a mouse, through a user interface control element on the browser page associated with modifying task properties, through a drop-down or hover-on style control menu, or comparable controls (e.g. touch or keyboard based interactions).” in Paragraph [0035], and “At decision operation 630, a determination may be made whether the move is a column change and/or a row change (e.g. a diagonal drag). If the move is a column change, it indicates a property change for the moved task(s). Thus, related properties (e.g., start/finish dates/times, duration, related task properties, etc.) may be updated at operation 660. If the move is a row change, it indicates a regrouping of tasks (i.e., the moved task being associated with a new summary task). In that case, the project hierarchy associated with the moved task may be updated at operation 640. Optionally, properties such as those listed above may also be updated at operation 650 (e.g., if the regrouping affects durations of individual tasks or a summary task). The updates from operations 660 and 650 may be provided to an underlying project management application at operation 670 such that appropriate aspects of the project can be re-computed, analyses updated, and visualizations modified.” in Paragraph [0049]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
De Vries et al. (US 2009/0327020 A1) teaches a system and method for providing scheduling tasks via a project management application.
Anaby-Tavor et al. (US 2015/0006232 A1) teaches a system for adaptive project planning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYAR M KYU whose telephone number is (571)272-3419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/T.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628