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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1-12 are drawn to a method and claims 13-20 are drawn to a system which are one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claims 1 recites a method comprising the following:
establishing a convention for file names comprising unique task metadata;
naming a plurality of files or URLs according to the established convention;
…….an index of the plurality of files or URLs;
measuring, …..,an active window during at least one time interval;
matching one or more active windows, measured over the at least one time interval, to the at least one file or URL; and
tabulating the time spent by the worker based on at least one unique task metadata component of the one or more active windows matched to the at least one file.
These steps amount to methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation; advertising, marketing, and sales activities or behaviors; and managing human mental activity (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
Additionally, these steps amount to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in a computer environment).
Independent claims 7 recites a method comprising the following:
creating at least one folder for a task……..;
……..at least one file, with unique metadata, inside the at least one folder; creating a folder-to-task index;
creating a file-to-task index based on a file-to-folder index and a storage location of the file;
matching the active window, measured over at least one time interval, to the at least one file; and
tabulating total time spent by the worker by the file-to-task index.
These steps amount to methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation; advertising, marketing, and sales activities or behaviors; and managing human mental activity (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
Additionally, these steps amount to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in a computer environment).
Independent claims 13 recites a method comprising the following:
measure, …….used by a worker, the active window over at least one interval of time; and
match the active window, measured over the at least one interval of time, to the at least one file…….
These steps amount to methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation; advertising, marketing, and sales activities or behaviors; and managing human mental activity (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
Additionally, these steps amount to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in a computer environment).
Dependent claim 2 recites, in part, further comprising generating an invoice based on the tabulation of the total time spent by the worker.
Dependent claim 3 recites, in part, wherein the unique task metadata comprises a client identification.
Dependent claim 4 recites, in part, wherein the unique task metadata comprises a project identification associated with the client identification.
Dependent claim 5 recites, in part, wherein the unique task metadata comprises the task identification associated with a project identification.
Dependent claim 6 recites, in part, wherein the unique task metadata comprises a subtask identification associated with the task identification.
Dependent claim 8 recites, in part, wherein the at least one file contains at least one email, document, presentation, database, voicemail, audio file, image file, video file, social media, and web site.
Dependent claim 9 recites, in part, further comprising ranking at least one task in terms of value, using an hourly-rate scale for ranking.
Dependent claim 10 recites, in part, further comprising tabulating a total rate for at least one task.
Dependent claim 11 recites, in part, wherein an API is used to create at least one index.
Dependent claim 12 recites, in part, wherein the at least one index is created by using a scraping script to scan file data.
Dependent claim 14 recites, in part, further comprising a remote server.
Dependent claim 15 recites, in part, wherein matching the at least one active window, measured over the at least one interval of time, to the at least one file, is executed on a remote server.
Dependent claim 16 recites, in part, establish a convention for file names comprising unique task metadata; name the at least one file according to an established convention; and tabulate total time spent by a worker on at least one unique task metadata component.
Dependent claim 17 recites, in part, create at least one folder, in a digital file system, for at least one task,; store at least one file, with unique metadata, inside the at least one folder; create a folder-to-task index; create a file-to-task index, based on a file-to-folder index and a storage location of the file; and tabulate total time spent by a worker based on the file-to-task index.
Dependent claim 18 recites, in part, further comprising at least one input/output device associated with, and communicatively connected, to the computing device used by a worker.
Dependent claim 19 recites, in part, monitor and record inputs at at least one input/output device, associated with and communicatively connected, to the computing device used by a worker, over at least one interval of time.
Dependent claim 20 recites, in part, match inputs, measured over the at least one time interval to the at least one file.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 13-20 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1, 7, and 13 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Independent Claim 1 recites, in part, digitally storing and a worker computing device. The specification defines digitally storing as contains files or URLs, URLs, or software applications which constitute Work-Product sold by the organization to its customers, (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0023), and a worker computing device as using software that is operative, in conjunction with supporting hardware subsystems, to monitor and collect information related to the active window that a worker has in focus (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0015). The use of digitally storing and a worker computing device are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Independent Claim 7 recites, in part, a digital file system and storing at least one file. The specification defines a digital file system as uses one or more folders created for each task, (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0019), and storing at least one file as storing one or more files or URLs with unique metadata inside the one or more folders, (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0005). The use of a digital file system and storing at least one file are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Independent Claim 13 recites, in part, at least one display device associated with, and communicatively connected, to a computing device used by a worker; a database stored on a computer-readable medium; and at least one processor, a computing device used by a worker, and stored in the database. The specification defines a computing device used by a worker as using software that is operative, in conjunction with supporting hardware subsystems, to monitor and collect information related to the active window that a worker has in focus (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0015), and stored in the database as stored on a computer-readable medium (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0006). The at least one display device associated with, and communicatively connected, to a computing device used by a worker; a database stored on a computer-readable medium; and at least one processor in these steps are recited at a high-level generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The use of at least one display device associated with, and communicatively connected, to a computing device used by a worker; a database stored on a computer-readable medium; and at least one processor, a computing device used by a worker, and stored in the database are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claim 8 recites, in part, a database and a website. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claim 11, recites in part, an API. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claim 12, recites in part, a scraping script. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claims 14 and 15, recite in part, a remote server. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claim 17, recites in part, digital file system and store at least one file. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claims 18 and 19, recite in part, one input/output device and the computing device. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Independent Claim 1 recites, in part, digitally storing and a worker computing device. Independent claim 7 recites, in part, a digital file system and storing at least one file. Independent claim 13 recites, in part, at least one display device associated with, and communicatively connected, to a computing device used by a worker; a database stored on a computer-readable medium; and at least one processor, a computing device used by a worker, and stored in the database. Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as use of storing data and a worker computing device to store and input data. Use of the file system and storing a file to input and store files. Use of the display, device, medium, processor and database to input, store, analyze, and process data. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Dependent claim 8 recites, in part, a database and a website. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Dependent claim 11, recites in part, an API. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Dependent claim 12, recites in part, a scraping script. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Dependent claims 14 and 15, recite in part, a remote server. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Dependent claim 17, recites in part, digital file system and store at least one file. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Dependent claims 18 and 19, recite in part, one input/output device and the computing device. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2008/0133287, Slattery, et al., hereinafter Slattery in view of United States Patent Number 11,954,071, Shin, et al., hereinafter Shin.
Regarding claim 1, Slattery discloses a computer-implemented method for automatic time tracking, comprising:
digitally storing an index of the plurality of files or URLs, (para. 40, the system user 101 may associate the client billable activities 451 with their corresponding user application activities 103 in a look-up table 459 in a file accessible to the time tracking application);
measuring, at a worker computing device, an active window during at least one time interval, (para. 3, a time tracking application may automatically track the amount of time a user spends performing activities on one or more user applications. For example, time may be automatically tracked for client billable activities);
matching one or more active windows, measured over the at least one time interval, to the at least one file or URL, (para. 3, a time tracking application may automatically track the amount of time a user spends performing activities on one or more user applications. For example, time may be automatically tracked for client billable activities and para. 32, the time tracking application 107 may store a client identity 353 with the time tracking entries. For example, the time tracking application 107 may determine that the opened file is associated with Client A and may store a client indicator 311 indicating "Client A". In some embodiments, the time tracking application 107 may access information stored in the file the system user 101 opened to determine the identity of the client 353. For example, the time tracking application 107 may read information in a file header or access the text of the file to determine a client identity 353. In some embodiments, the time tracking application 107 may access a database with information about the file); and
tabulating the time spent by the worker based on at least one unique task metadata component of the one or more active windows matched to the at least one file, (para. 33, the time tracking entries may also store billing codes 349 (e.g., billing code 317) associated with user application activities 103 that are billable to a client (client billable activities). The billing codes 349 may be helpful, for example, in summarizing and/or grouping related billing entries on a client bill).
Slattery does not explicitly disclose establishing a convention for file names comprising unique task metadata;
naming a plurality of files or URLs according to the established convention.
However, Shin teaches establishing a convention for file names comprising unique task metadata, (col 4, lines 29-42, implementing a default file name for files based on each file's location, and tracking the files previously processed by the container to assign the appropriate sequential number to newly processed files);
naming a plurality of files or URLs according to the established convention, (col 4, lines 29-42, implementing a default file name for files based on each file's location, and tracking the files previously processed by the container to assign the appropriate sequential number to newly processed files).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the automatic tracking system of Slattery to include the above limitations, as taught by Shin, in order to establishing a convention for file names comprising unique task metadata, (see Shin at least at col. 8, lines 42-51).
Regarding claim 2, Slattery discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Slattery further discloses further comprising generating an invoice based on the tabulation of the total time spent by the worker, (Fig. 8, and para. 20, The tracked time may then be used, for example, to prepare invoices for a client for the activities performed. To automatically track time for a user, a time tracking application may monitor a user's activities with the user application and store time tracking entries with the types of activities performed by the user and the time spent performing the activities).
Regarding claim 3, Slattery discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Slattery further discloses wherein the unique task metadata comprises a client identification, (para. 32, the time tracking application 107 may store a client identity 353 with the time tracking entries.).
Regarding claim 4, Slattery discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Slattery further discloses wherein the unique task metadata comprises a project identification associated with the client identification, (para. 32, the time tracking application 107 may store a client identity 353 with the time tracking entries and para. 33, the time tracking entries may also store billing codes 349 (e.g., billing code 317) associated with user application activities 103 that are billable to a client).
Regarding claim 5, Slattery discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Slattery further discloses wherein the unique task metadata comprises the task identification associated with a project identification, (para. 33, the time tracking entries may also store billing codes 349 (e.g., billing code 317) associated with user application activities 103 that are billable to a client).
Regarding claim 6, Slattery discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Slattery further discloses wherein the unique task metadata comprises a subtask identification associated with the task identification, (para. 6, time indicators may be determined by calculating the amount of time between user application activities and their companion user application activities).
Regarding claim 7, Slattery discloses a computer-implemented method for automatic time tracking, comprising:
matching the active window, measured over at least one time interval, to the at least one file, (para. 3, a time tracking application may automatically track the amount of time a user spends performing activities on one or more user applications. For example, time may be automatically tracked for client billable activities and para. 32, the time tracking application 107 may store a client identity 353 with the time tracking entries. For example, the time tracking application 107 may determine that the opened file is associated with Client A and may store a client indicator 311 indicating "Client A". In some embodiments, the time tracking application 107 may access information stored in the file the system user 101 opened to determine the identity of the client 353. For example, the time tracking application 107 may read information in a file header or access the text of the file to determine a client identity 353. In some embodiments, the time tracking application 107 may access a database with information about the file); and
tabulating total time spent by the worker by the file-to-task index, (para. 33, the time tracking entries may also store billing codes 349 (e.g., billing code 317) associated with user application activities 103 that are billable to a client (client billable activities). The billing codes 349 may be helpful, for example, in summarizing and/or grouping related billing entries on a client bill).
Slattery does not explicitly disclose the following:
creating at least one folder for a task in a digital file system, ();
storing at least one file, with unique metadata, inside the at least one folder;
creating a folder-to-task index;
creating a file-to-task index based on a file-to-folder index and a storage location of the file.
However, Shin teaches the following:
creating at least one folder for a task in a digital file system, (col 4, lines 29-42, implementing a default file name for files based on each file's location, and tracking the files previously processed by the container to assign the appropriate sequential number to newly processed files);
storing at least one file, with unique metadata, inside the at least one folder, (col 4, lines 29-42, implementing a default file name for files based on each file's location, and tracking the files previously processed by the container to assign the appropriate sequential number to newly processed files);
creating a folder-to-task index, (col. 2, lines 11-20, a file organization system includes a container for renaming files added thereto, the container having a file naming convention by which the files are named. The container may generate a log file to store information regarding the history of the files, for example, the previous file names it has had, the current file name, the previous locations of the file and the current file location, the dates when the file was renamed or moved, etc.);
creating a file-to-task index based on a file-to-folder index and a storage location of the file, (col. 2, lines 11-20, a file organization system includes a container for renaming files added thereto, the container having a file naming convention by which the files are named. The container may generate a log file to store information regarding the history of the files, for example, the previous file names it has had, the current file name, the previous locations of the file and the current file location, the dates when the file was renamed or moved, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the automatic tracking system of Slattery to include the above limitations, as taught by Shin, in order to establishing a convention for file names comprising unique task metadata, (see Shin at least at col. 8, lines 42-51).
Regarding claim 8, Slattery discloses the method of claim 7 as described above. Slattery further discloses wherein the at least one file contains at least one email, document, presentation, database, voicemail, audio file, image file, video file, social media, and web site, (Fig. 9C, para. 26, the time tracking application 107 may store a data structure (e.g., a time tracking entry) with information about the user application activities 103 (e.g., as determined from the messages 111) in a database, and para. 70, an electronic copy of the invoice may be sent to the client 353 (e.g., in an email)).
Regarding claim 9, Slattery discloses the method of claim 7 as described above. Slattery further discloses further comprising ranking at least one task in terms of value, using an hourly-rate scale for ranking, (para. 77, Additional data (e.g., billing rates) may be collected, for example, from an external storage device. Other sources of data are also contemplated (e.g., the tax accountant may enter their billing rate). Different billing codes may be linked to different billing rates).
Regarding claim 10, Slattery discloses the method of claims 7 and 9 as described above. Slattery further discloses further comprising tabulating a total rate for at least one task, (para. 77, Additional data (e.g., billing rates) may be collected, for example, from an external storage device. Other sources of data are also contemplated (e.g., the tax accountant may enter their billing rate). Different billing codes may be linked to different billing rates).
Regarding claim 11, Slattery discloses the method of claim 7 as described above. Slattery does not explicitly disclose wherein an API is used to create at least one index.
However, Shin teaches wherein an API is used to create at least one index, (col.
4, lines 35-45, the operations of many organizations may benefit from recording the source of files that are copied or moved into certain directories or file folders, implementing a default file name for files based on each file's location, and tracking the files previously processed by the container to assign the appropriate sequential number to newly processed files).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the automatic tracking system of Slattery to include the above limitations, as taught by Shin, in order to create at least one index, (see Shin at least at col. 8, lines 42-51).
Regarding claim 12, Slattery discloses the method of claim 7 as described above. Slattery does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one index is created by using a scraping script to scan file data.
However, Shin teaches wherein the at least one index is created by using a scraping script to scan file data, (col. 4, lines 35-45, the operations of many organizations may benefit from recording the source of files that are copied or moved into certain directories or file folders, implementing a default file name for files based on each file's location, and tracking the files previously processed by the container to assign the appropriate sequential number to newly processed files).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the automatic tracking system of Slattery to include the above limitations, as taught by Shin, in order to create at least one index, (see Shin at least at col. 8, lines 42-51).
Regarding claim 13, this claim is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Slattery further discloses at least one display device associated with, and communicatively connected, to a computing device used by a worker;
a database stored on a computer-readable medium; and
at least one processor, (para. 78).
Regarding claim 14, Slattery discloses the method of claim 13 as described above. Slattery further discloses further comprising a remote server, (paragraphs 78 and 79).
Regarding claim 15, Slattery discloses the method of claims 13 and 14 as described above. Slattery further discloses wherein matching the at least one active window, measured over the at least one interval of time, to the at least one file, is executed on a remote server, (para. 3, a time tracking application may automatically track the amount of time a user spends performing activities on one or more user applications. For example, time may be automatically tracked for client billable activities and para. 32, the time tracking application 107 may store a client identity 353 with the time tracking entries. For example, the time tracking application 107 may determine that the opened file is associated with Client A and may store a client indicator 311 indicating "Client A". In some embodiments, the time tracking application 107 may access information stored in the file the system user 101 opened to determine the identity of the client 353. For example, the time tracking application 107 may read information in a file header or access the text of the file to determine a client identity 353. In some embodiments, the time tracking application 107 may access a database with information about the file, and paragraphs 78-79).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claims 1 and 7.
Regarding claim 18, Slattery discloses the method of claim 13 as described above. Slattery further discloses further comprising at least one input/output device associated with, and communicatively connected, to the computing device used by a worker, (para. 21, User application activities 103 may include activities by a system user 101 to interact with a user application and para. 78).
Regarding claim 19, Slattery discloses the method of claims 13 and 18 as described above. Slattery further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further operative to:
monitor and record inputs at at least one input/output device, associated with and communicatively connected, to the computing device used by a worker, over at least one interval of time, (para. 3, a time tracking application may automatically track the amount of time a user spends performing activities on one or more user applications. For example, time may be automatically tracked for client billable activities and para. 21, User application activities 103 may include activities by a system user 101 to interact with a user application).
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
METHODS AND SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATIC WORK LOGGING AND TRACKING (US 20140172478 A1) teaches automated work logging having a processor, an automatic data capture module for capturing computer usage data, a task list having one or more tasks, a task matching unit which is configured and arranged to match a task in the task list to the computer usage data, and a work log data storage for storing matched computer usage data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amber Misiaszek whose telephone number is 571-270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30, First Friday Off.
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, Fonya Long can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682