DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are pending, with Claims 11-15 having been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-10 are considered in this Office 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-15 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's election with without traverse of the non-elected Claims in the reply filed on 2/25/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant has withdrawn Claims 11-15 in response to this requirement.
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.
Alice - Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites limitations for a work breakdown structure table comprising a plurality of columns and a plurality of rows, a set of scope fields arranged in a first column of the columns in the work breakdown structure table, wherein the set of scope fields is comprised of a heading field and a plurality of task fields correlated to the heading field, wherein each one of the task fields corresponds with a corresponding one of the rows in the work breakdown structure table, a first set of schedule fields arranged in a second column of the columns in the work breakdown structure table, wherein the first set of schedule fields is comprised of a plurality of start date fields correlated to the task fields in the corresponding rows of the work breakdown structure table, a second set of schedule fields arranged in a third column of the columns in the work breakdown structure table, wherein the second set of schedule fields is comprised of a plurality of end date fields correlated to the task fields in the corresponding rows of the work breakdown structure table; and a first set of resource fields arranged in a fourth column of the columns in the work breakdown structure table, wherein the first set of resource fields is comprised of a first resource identifier field and a first set of resource allocation fields correlated to the first resource identifier field and the task fields in a scope-resource matrix in the work breakdown structure table, wherein a null value in a first subset of the resource allocation fields corresponds to a first set of unallocated tasks in the task fields for the first resource identifier field, and wherein a nonnull value in a second subset of the resource allocation fields corresponds to a first set of allocated tasks in the task fields for the first resource identifier (Collecting, Analyzing, and Transmitting the Information, an observation, evaluation, and judgement, a Mental Process; Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Managing Tasks/Scheduling; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of Managing Tasks, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting use of an interactive display and a computer-implemented project management system, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of managing tasks. For example, this table can be drawn up on a piece of paper with column and rows, which is both a Mental Process and Organizing Human Activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for organizing and tracking information for Managing Human Activity, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The display and system are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmitting steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0045] The workflow computers can be standard desktop computers or laptop computers, and could also be tablet computers or even smartphone devices, which use standard monitor screens, touchscreens, or may even use virtual reality (VR) and/or augmented reality (AR) headset monitors (or any other screen/monitor device which may be developed in the future). The workflow computers could also be tablet computers which have their own touchscreens. It will also be appreciated that the software tool could alternatively be implemented in local computer networks without departing from the innovative aspects of the present invention.”
Which gives states any standard desktop or laptop computer, such as a tablet and smartphone, etc., can be used to perform the abstract limitations, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the system and display, etc., nor the receiving or transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clater (U.S. Publication No. 2006/017,3762) in view of Slezak (U.S. Publication No. 2020/000,4749).
Regarding Claim 1, Clater, a system and method for an automated project office and automatic risk assessment and reporting, teaches an interactive display a computer-implemented project management system ([0045] user interfaces which users interact with in a management system), comprising:
a work breakdown structure table comprising a plurality of columns and a plurality of rows ([0316] work breakdown on a table with columns and rows [0053] columns and rows);
a set of scope fields arranged in a first column of the columns in the work breakdown structure table, wherein the set of scope fields is comprised of a heading field and a plurality of task fields correlated to the heading field, wherein each one of the task fields corresponds with a corresponding one of the rows in the work breakdown structure table ([0047] [0053] and Fig. 3 show fields which are used for the plurality of tasks which are shown in rows and columns as in [0053] with headings for the fields);
a first set of schedule fields arranged in a second column of the columns in the work breakdown structure table, wherein the first set of schedule fields is comprised of a plurality of start date fields correlated to the task fields in the corresponding rows of the work breakdown structure table ([0075-76] schedule fields as in the table of Fig. 3 and this uses the [0082] start date fields of the WBS above);
a second set of schedule fields arranged in a third column of the columns in the work breakdown structure table, wherein the second set of schedule fields is comprised of a plurality of end date fields correlated to the task fields in the corresponding rows of the work breakdown structure table ([0075-76] schedule fields as in the table of Fig. 3 and this uses the [0082] start date fields of the WBS above, in Fig. 3 there are multiple schedule fields and fields in general that are displayed by the system); and
Although Slater teaches a first set of resource fields arranged in a fourth column of the columns in the work breakdown structure table, wherein the first set of resource fields is comprised of a first resource identifier field and a first set of resource allocation fields correlated to the first resource identifier field and the task fields in a scope-resource matrix in the work breakdown structure table ([0028] the WBS schedule and fields as in Fig. 3 are used to allocate resources, which are fields with tables and columns, using a resource and an identifier again as in Fig. 3), it does not explicitly teach subsets of tasks, or null values of the allocated
Slezak, a system and method for intelligent capture and fast transformations of granulated data summaries in database engines, teaches wherein a null value in a first subset of the resource allocation fields corresponds to a first set of unallocated tasks in the task fields for the first resource identifier field, and wherein a nonnull value in a second subset of the resource allocation fields corresponds to a first set of allocated tasks in the task fields for the first resource identifier (Table 14 and [0266] null values are used along with subsets of information which utilizes allocation of resources as in [0046] and [0059])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the resource allocation using tables and fields of information of Clater with the database and display manipulation using null values and subsets of information of Slezak as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to problems with allocation of resources, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would lead to increase profits through cost saving by decreasing computational costs as taught in [0007] of Slezak.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the independent claim was amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20070078792 A1
Chen; Liang J.
One view integrated project management system
US 20060173762 A1
Clater; Gene
System and method for an automated project office and automatic risk assessment and reporting
US 20240256515 A1
Dorairaj; Pradeep et al.
DISTRIBUTED IN-DATABASE VECTORIZED OPERATIONS USING USER DEFINED TABLE FUNCTIONS
US 20200004749 A1
Slezak; Dominik et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INTELLIGENT CAPTURE AND FAST TRANSFORMATIONS OF GRANULATED DATA SUMMARIES IN DATABASE ENGINES
US 20170286502 A1
Bar-Or; Amir et al.
System and Method for Interactive Reporting in Computerized Data Modeling and Analysis
US 20160350700 A1
Leary; Daniel L. et al.
Project Management System For Integrated Project Schedules
US 20140324821 A1
Meiyyappan; Krishnan et al.
ACCESSING DATA IN A COLUMN STORE DATABASE BASED ON HARDWARE COMPATIBLE INDEXING AND REPLICATED REORDERED COLUMNS
US 20140280193 A1
Cronin; Beau David et al.
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUSES FOR IMPLEMENTING A SIMILAR COMMAND WITH A PREDICTIVE QUERY INTERFACE
US 20140136511 A1
Hughes; Gregory Lawrence et al.
DISCOVERY AND USE OF NAVIGATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS IN TABULAR DATA
US 20110035244 A1
Leary; Daniel L. et al.
Project Management System for Integrated Project Schedules
US 20230325738 A1
Johnson III; Warren David et al.
MEETING RECURRENCE PLACEMENT OPERATOR
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 6/3/2026
Prosecution Insights