DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments and remarks filed on 30 April 2026.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome the 101 rejections previously raised. Those rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s amendments incorporating claim 2 into the independent claim are sufficient to overcome the 103 rejections previously raised. Those rejections are respectfully withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 30 April 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims recite improvements to technologies relating to computerize tracking systems for electronic deliverables and amount to significantly more and are therefore are eligible under 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Tracking deliverables is a problem that exists in all businesses and outside of a specific technical implementation. Applicant’s specification describes that the embodiments provide a streamlined and efficient solution that minimizes the amount of user inputs in order for the system to calculate delivery dates accurately and efficiently. Any purported improvement in efficiency is wholly within the identified abstract idea. The claims set forth a series of identification and determination steps that are merely applied “with the controller”. The use of a computer in a generalized fashion to increase efficiency does not meaningfully limit the otherwise abstract claims. In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed methodology to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e. through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations. The claimed invention does not realize an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. The 101 rejection is respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendment to the claim.
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 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites limitations for identifying a contract data requirements list deliverable associated with a program, determining whether the CDRL deliverable is associated with a milestone and whether there is a recurrence, determining a delivery date, and in response to determining that the deliverable is not associated with a milestone or occurrence determining that the delivery date is an input delivery date . These limitations, as drafted, illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. Identifying a deliverable and making determinations illustrate high level observation and evaluation type functions that could be done the same way mentally or manually with a pen and paper. But for “with a controller” language, the claims encompass a user simply observing and making determinations in their mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component or computer system environment does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements including displaying with the controller via a display, as well as the controller with which the identifying and determining functions are performed. The displaying is recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data transmission outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. The controller that performs the identifying and determining is also recited at a high level of generality and merely automates those steps. Each of the additional components is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in a particular computerize based environment. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception in a generic computer environment with generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or linking the steps to a generic computer environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the displaying step that was considered extra solution activity in step 2A above, this has been re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the controller is anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs. court decisions in MPEP 2106.05 indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Dependent claims 3-20 include all of the limitations of claim 1 and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims merely narrow the recited abstract idea by describing additional observation and evaluation steps including determining, identifying, describing what the list indicates and elements of the display and interface. The claims include additional elements for detecting, with the controller, updating, with the controller, querying, with the controller, displaying with the controller via a user interface, automatically updating, with the controller, accessing with the controller, describing the database entry, and switching between views. The additional elements recited fail to transform the claims into a patent eligible invention but instead describe additional extra solution activity including displaying (e.g. outputting/transmission, detecting (e.g. gathering), updating, querying, accessing and switching views (e.g. storing/gathering). When re-evaluated in step 2B these steps are determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the controller is anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs. court decisions in MPEP 2106.05 indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Describing the database, elements in the display, interface checkboxes, and content links merely depicts the computer and interface environment but does not meaningfully limit the implementation of the recited abstract idea nor does it transform the claims into a patent eligible invention by amounting to significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 3-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Distinguishable over Prior Art
Claims 1 and 3-20 are considered distinguishable over prior art based on the incorporation of the limitations of Claim 2 into independent claim 1. None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination teach the limitations set forth in the claimed invention, specifically the ability to determine the delivery date for the deliverable by determining that the date be an input delivery date when the CDRL deliverable is not associated with any milestone and is not associated with any recurrence of the one or more recurrences..
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights