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
Due to communications filed 11/22/24, the following is a first action non-final office action. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows.
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 (l.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With regard to the present claims 1-20, these claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process, and ultimately, is statutory.
In addition, the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims as a whole recites “Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes”. The claimed invention is a method that allows for organizing and managing human activity through project workflow, tasks and instruction. The claimed invention is also directed to information processing through identifying sections, generating an index and generating tasks. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer/computer network does not take the claim out of the methods of the “Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of organizing and managing human activity through project workflow, tasks and instruction and information processing through identifying sections, generating an index and generating tasks, in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing records update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Finally, the claims do not recite an inventive concept. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Phillips et al (US 4370707 A).
As per claim 1, Phillips et al discloses:
accessing a file corresponding to a specification, (Abstract: The specifier uses only a limited number of commands to completely specify a project. The code is fed into a computer which has all the information in the Master Phrase Catalog stored on permanent record file, called the specification data file, with an index file correlating the specifier's code with the phrases that will eventually make up the specification.);
identifying a table of contents in the specification, (Abstract: The computer is programmed to...prepare an architectural specification from the specification data file together with a table of contents and listing of errors);
wherein the table of contents includes a plurality of divisions and a plurality of sections, (SEE FIG. 3, [DIVISION OR SECTION NAME]; (13) The command, DIV, is also optional, and if used, it provides major headings for the final printed specification...the order form has a second column comprising four character spaces and designated 18 for the identification of a Section Group Number...there is a column designated 19 for the insertion of Section Numbers by the specifier. These Section Numbers are arbitrary numbers used in dividing the final specification for a particular project...That is, the Section Group Numbers are subdivisions within the Master Phrase Catalog, whereas these Section Numbers are subdivisions within a given specification relating to a particular project; (14) There are three different methods of inserting division titles, if they are desired to be used);
determining an instruction in the specification, wherein the instruction is identified by the corresponding division and section, ((124) Once the program determines what the information is in the decision block 306, the SPEC 3 program enters into one of the subroutines identified by the blocks 307, 308, 309, 310, or, alternatively, determines that it is an end-of-spec in which the program is looped back to the subroutine S3END. If it is one of the following: Section Group Number, ADD command, Division Title or Section Title, the appropriate subroutine is entered into, as illustrated. After the subroutine is finished, the program loops back to the subroutine 303 to obtain the next word from the Instruction Input File);
generating an index based on the table of contents, wherein the index includes the plurality of divisions and the plurality of sections, ((10) After the input code is edited and an edited input file prepared by the first phase of the computer program, the edit input file is then used to produce the final architectural specification including a...table of contents...A record of all possible instructions is stored in the file in the computer and a separate file serving as an index to the main instruction file is also stored in the computer.(28); the Spec index file 27 has stored in it detailed information relating a specific Section Group Number...to a storage location in the Spec Data File 28...the Spec 1 portion of the program 23 produces an edited input file 26 which will be used to produce the actual architectural specification and instruction lists, if any. The Spec 1 program 23 also produces an input listing print-out 29 showing all of the divisions, Section Group Numbers and phrase numbers used by the programmer); and
generating a task based on the identified instruction and the corresponding division and section, ((2) The present invention relates to a system for generating a complete set of architectural specifications and correlated instructions...and task assignments for various groups of people for constructing a building; (5) The phrases in the Master Phrase Catalog are arranged under broad headings called divisions which represent large phases of construction; and the divisions are further subdivided into sections. Each section has an identifying section group number, and it relates to a task).
As per claim 2, Phillips et al discloses:
searching the file based on a keyword, ((124) Once the program determines what the information is in the decision block 306, the SPEC 3 program enters into one of the subroutines identified by the blocks 307, 308, 309, 310, or, alternatively, determines that it is an end-of-spec in which the program is looped back to the subroutine S3END. If it is one of the following: Section Group Number, ADD command, Division Title or Section Title); and
identifying the instruction within the division and the section of the specification identified by the keyword, (124) Section Group Number, ADD command, Division Title or Section Title...the appropriate subroutine is entered into, as illustrated. After the subroutine is finished, the program loops back to the subroutine 303 to obtain the next word from the Instruction Input File.).
As per claim 3, Phillips et al discloses:
wherein the keyword indicates one of a start of a section or an end of a section, ((23) END COMMAND (24) When a specifier has completed a specification, he enters the command, END, in column 18, and this will indicate to the computer program that a specification is finished).
As per claim 5, Phillips et al discloses:
identifying an error in the index, wherein the error includes one of an inconsistency between content of the specification and the table of contents, a typographical error, a missing division or section, (Abstract: The code is fed into a computer which has all the information in the Master Phrase Catalog stored on permanent record file, called the specification data file, with an index file correlating the specifier's code with the phrases that will eventually make up the specification. The computer is programmed to edit the input code for errors, prepare a listing of the input specifier's code and prepare an architectural specification from the specification data file together with a table of contents and listing of errors, if any).
As per claim 16, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 17,
searching the specification based on a keyword; and
identifying the instruction within a division and a section of the specification identified by the keyword.
Please see the rejection for claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 9-11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al (US 4370707 A), and further in view of YAMAZAKI et al (JP 2006309390 A).
As per claim 4, Phillips et al does not disclose:
displaying the index on a display; receiving a user input corresponding to a revision to the index; and
updating the index based on the user input corresponding to the revision,
However, YAMAZAKI et al (JP 2006309390 A) discloses: (Then, when “new creation” is selected in the main window 101 displayed on the item classification result / evaluation display unit 11, the classification index setting unit 3 displays the item classification window display area 104 (see FIG. 8) of the display menu 103. ) Displays an item classification window 501 (see FIG. 9). At this time, when the user inputs a classification index in the X-axis classification index field 603 and the Y-axis classification index field 604 of the item classification switching area 602 in the item classification editing tag 601, the item classification setting unit 2 displays the input index. Accordingly, the screen of the item classification result / evaluation display means 11 is updated, and the classification index setting means 3 displays the product distribution diagram 605A according to the X axis classification index and the Y axis classification index. Along with this, the item classification determination unit 10 sets the input classification index as the classification index in the item classification result / evaluation value storage unit 13 (S101)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by YAMAZAKI et al in the systems of Phillips et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 9, Phillips et al discloses:
accessing a file, (Abstract: The specifier uses only a limited number of commands to completely specify a project. The code is fed into a computer which has all the information in the Master Phrase Catalog stored on permanent record file, called the specification data file, with an index file correlating the specifier's code with the phrases that will eventually make up the specification.);
receiving a user input indicating a feature on the file;
(20) Once a section title is entered to begin a new section, that section title will continue through the specification until the specifier enters a new section title or a division title, in the manner described...a new Section Group Number will prepare the computer to print the phrases selected from that new Section Group, and it will also appear as marginal reference material for the specifier in the edited input listing prepared by the computer for purposes of corrections or modifications; (33) As an example, let it be assumed that a specifier desires to have, along with the printed architectural specification, a set of instructions to the draftsmen and a set of instructions to the contract administrator. Then, going through the Master Phrase Catalog, he selects various phrases in composing the architectural specification...Supposing he selects in a Section Group, the Phrase Number 38, corresponding to "village ordinances". This number is then entered on the order form as described and keypunched on a computer card. The phrase number is then processed by the Spec 1 and Spec 2 portions of the program and stored on the instruction input file 35.);
generating an index based on the feature, ((10) After the input code is edited and an edited input file prepared by the first phase of the computer program, the edit input file is then used to produce the final architectural specification including a...table of contents...A record of all possible instructions is stored in the file in the computer and a separate file serving as an index to the main instruction file is also stored in the computer.(28); the Spec index file 27 has stored in it detailed information relating a specific Section Group Number...to a storage location in the Spec Data File 28...the Spec 1 portion of the program 23 produces an edited input file 26 which will be used to produce the actual architectural specification and instruction lists, if any. The Spec 1 program 23 also produces an input listing print-out 29 showing all of the divisions, Section Group Numbers and phrase numbers used by the programmer);
and
generating a task based on the feature, ((2) The present invention relates to a system for generating a complete set of architectural specifications and correlated instructions...and task assignments for various groups of people for constructing a building; (5) The phrases in the Master Phrase Catalog are arranged under broad headings called divisions which represent large phases of construction; and the divisions are further subdivided into sections. Each section has an identifying section group number, and it relates to a task).
Phillips et al does not disclose displaying the file on a display;
However, YAMAZAKI et al (JP 2006309390 A) discloses: (“Then, when “new creation” is selected in the main window 101 displayed on the item classification result / evaluation display unit 11, the classification index setting unit 3 displays the item classification window display area 104 (see FIG. 8) of the display menu 103. ) Displays an item classification window 501 (see FIG. 9)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by YAMAZAKI et al in the systems of Phillips et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 10, Phillips et al discloses:
wherein the file includes one of a floorplan, blueprint, layout, or a design, (Abstract: A computer system is disclosed for preparing a complete set of architectural specifications for constructing a building, including, if desired, sets of instructions that will be used by personnel during preparation of construction drawings and during construction. (where the floor plan, blueprint, layout, or a design is obvious with a complete set of architectural specifications for constructing a building, since managing a project workflow in the field of construction always includes at least floorplans and layouts ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Phillips et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and managing a project workflow in the field of construction always includes at least floorplans and layouts, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 11, Phillips et al discloses: wherein the feature is one of a page number, a drawing number, or a title, ((20) Once a section title is entered to begin a new section, that section title will continue through the specification until the specifier enters a new section title or a division title).
As per claim 13,
displaying the index on the display;
receiving a second user input corresponding to a revision to the index,
See rejection for claim 4.
As per claim 14,
tracking progress of the task based on actions of a third party; and
updating a status of the task based on the tracked progress.
Please see the rejection for claim 8.
As per claim 15,
generating a notification based on an instruction to the third party.
Please see the rejection for claim 7.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al (US 4370707 A), and further in view of YAMAZAKI et al (JP 2006309390 A), and further in view of ZHANG (AU 2011369050 A1).
As per claim 12, Phillips et al does not disclose: wherein receiving the user input indicating the feature further comprises segmenting an area of the feature, wherein the area is one of a square, rectangle, circle, oval, or triangle.
However, ZHANG (AU 2011369050 A1) discloses: [00411 Figure 2 shows a portion of a display screen showing an index image generated by the system depicting the skeleton of a patient in a front view with three target body parts highlighted in this embodiment by circles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by ZHANG in the systems of Phillips et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 6, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al (US 4370707 A), and further in view of Lu et al (US 20100205052 A1).
As per claim 6, Phillips et al does not disclose:
wherein the instruction includes one of a request for an action to be executed by a third party, or a request for information from the third party,
However, Lu et al (US 20100205052 A1) discloses: ([0031] An example embodiment provides methods and systems of a server device 100 (as illustrated in FIG. 1) to process a merchant-uploaded inventory data (e.g., stock and/or supply data) to determine a set of meta-data attributes 412 (e.g., the set of meta-data attributes 412 of FIG. 4) associated with the merchant-uploaded inventory data and to create an index data 110 (e.g., the index data 110 of FIG. 1) using the set of meta-data attributes associated with the merchant uploaded inventory data. The term "creating," as referred to in one embodiment, is best defined as the formulation and development of the index data referred herein, based upon the production of merchant-uploaded inventory data provided directly by third-party merchants. [where the merchant-upload is analogous to the request for action by a third party].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Lu et al in the systems of Phillips et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 18,
wherein the instruction includes one of a request for an action to be executed by a third party, or a request for information from the third party.
Please see the rejection for claim 6.
11. Claim(s) 7, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al (US 4370707 A), and further in view of Lu et al (US 20100205052 A1), and further in view of MATSUOKA (CA 3230716 A1).
As per claim 7, Phillips et al does not disclose:
wherein generating the task further comprises generating a notification based on the instruction to the third party.
However, MATSUOKA discloses: ([0021] FIG. 11 shows an illustrative example of an environment in which a machine learning algorithm or artificial intelligence is implemented to process messages exchanged between a member and a representative to inform a representative of new projects and tasks in accordance with at least one embodiment.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by MATSUOKA in the systems of Phillips et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 19,
generating a notification based on the instruction to the third party.
Please see the rejection for claim 7.
Claim(s) 8, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al (US 4370707 A), and further in view of MATSUOKA (CA 3230716 A1).
As per claim 8, Phillips et al does not disclose:
tracking progress of the task based on actions of a third party,
However, MATSUOKA discloses: ( [0022] FIG. 12 shows an illustrative example of an environment in which a task coordination system assigns and monitors performance of a task for the benefit of a member by a representative and/or one or more third-party services in accordance with at least one embodiment; [0022] FIG. 12 shows an illustrative example of an environment in which a task Coordination system assigns and monitors performance of a task for the benefit of a member by a representative and/or one or more third-party services in accordance with at least one embodiment); and
updating a status of the task based on the tracked progress ([0133], For example, if the message 218 is received and processed by the message processing module 1302B as associated with an existing task, the tagging of the message 218 may be further processed by the system to identify a sense of frustration or urgency associated with an existing task, and a representative may be alerted. In some situations, this can involve identifying whether one or more existing representatives associated with the existing task have failed to facilitate the task, or whether there is confusion or misunderstanding over the status of the existing task. In some such implementations, the system may automatically identify a member task
that is delaying project progress, and can trigger a task reminder).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by MATSUOKA in the systems of Phillips et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 20,
tracking progress of the task based on actions of a third party; and
updating a status of the task based on the tracked progress.
Please see the rejection for claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
February 11, 2026
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628