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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 11/26/2024.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner acknowledges substitute drawings dated 02/27/2025.
Claim Objection
Claims 10 and 20 are objected to for the following informalities. Claim 10 recites, “…wherein a selection [of] multiple cost codes from…” at line 1. Claim 20 is objected under the same rationale. There is a grammatical issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 9, 11, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, (b)/second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The following have insufficient antecedent basis issues:
Claim 8 recites, “a project” at line 1. Claim 18 is rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim 9 recites, “a project” at line 1. Claim 19 is rejected based on same rationale.
Claim 11 recites, “a project” at line 3.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
A method for tracking time allocated to projects, said method being implemented on [a user device having a processor], comprising:
logging, on [the user device], time spent on a project by at least one individual;
selecting multiple cost codes relating to the time spent on the project by the at least one individual;
generating time blocks for display on [a graphical user interface] at the user device, the time blocks being distributed across the selection of multiple cost codes; and
allocating, on the user device, time spent on the project across the multiple cost codes using at least one slider of the graphical user interface on the user device to adjust the time blocks on display;
wherein adjustment of the at least one slider on the graphical user interface automatically adjusts the time spent on the project proportionally to each cost code after all time has been allocated.
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor). For example, logging time spent on project, selecting associated cost codes, generating time blocks and allocating time spent on projects is related to collecting and analyzing data then producing a result slider adjustment. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Mental Processes.
In addition, the claim could be seen as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity related to managing personal behaviors or interactions.
Claim 11 recites:
a time allocation module for logging, on [a user device], time spent on a project by at least one individual; and
a graphical user interface for allocating, on [the user device], time spent on a project across multiple cost codes using at least one slider of the graphical user interface on the user device;
wherein the at least one slider is configured to automatically adjust proportionally to each cost code after all time has been allocated.
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor). For example, logging time spent on project, selecting associated cost codes, generating time blocks and allocating time spent on projects is related to collecting and analyzing data then producing a result slider adjustment. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Mental Processes.
Claim 11 is similar to claim 1. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claims 2-3 are directed to multiple cost codes; Claims 4-7 are directed to slider functionality; Claim 8 is directed to time spent on project determines total percentage; Claim 9 is directed percentage complete and Claim 10 is directed to multiple cost codes displayed with slider. Claims 12-20 substantially recites the subject matter of Claims 2-9 are encompass the same abstract ideas.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 recites the additional elements of a user device including a processor. Claim 11 recites the additional element of a user device. These are generic computer component recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (See Spec ¶0026).
For instances regarding claim 1, the steps of logging time spent on a project and selecting multiple cost codes related to time spent on project are data gathering activities. The steps of generating time blocks for display and allocating time spent on the project to project codes involve analyzing collected data. The step of adjusting a slider on a Gui is representing analyzed data and data input on a display. Claim 11 is similar to claim 1.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, 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 stated above, the additional elements of a processor, a memory, a crm, etc. are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 (AIA ) 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 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton et al. (US 2017/0068933) in view of Murakami ( US 2020/0257444).
Claim 1:
Norton discloses:
A method for tracking time allocated to projects, said method being implemented on a user device having a processor, comprising: (see at least ¶0134, users may enter, view and approve time entries on a project)
logging, on the user device, time spent on a project by at least one individual; (see at least ¶0132, mobile devices used to enter labor hours; see also ¶0134)
selecting multiple cost codes relating to the time spent on the project by the at least one individual; (see at least ¶0111, allocating labor hours to charge codes; see also ¶0081, allocating charge codes and labor hours; see also Figures 33, 37 and associated text)
allocating, on the user device, time spent on the project across the multiple cost codes… (see at least ¶0111, allocating labor hours to charge codes; see also ¶0081, allocating charge codes and labor hours; see also Figures 33, 37 and associated text)
While Norton discloses the above limitations, Norton does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Murakami does disclose:
generating time blocks for display on a graphical user interface at the user device, the time blocks being distributed across the selection of multiple cost codes; and (see at least Figures 4A-4B and associated text; see also ¶0050-¶0052, bar graph shows current proportion of work times spent on tasks, where the task is interpreted as the charge code, incremented by 10% intervals represented by ticks; see also ¶0053)
allocating, on the user device, time spent on the project across the multiple cost codes using at least one slider of the graphical user interface on the user device to adjust the time blocks on display; (see at least ¶0053, employee changes work time using a slider on the bar graph)
wherein adjustment of the at least one slider on the graphical user interface automatically adjusts the time spent on the project proportionally to each cost code after all time has been allocated. (see at least ¶0053, employee changes work time using a slider on the bar graph changes proportion allocated)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the work project system including collecting labor hours for work projects of Norton with the work proportion display Murakami to provide an easily readable graphical representation of hours worked per task.
Claim 2:
Norton and Murakami disclose claim 1. Norton further discloses:
wherein the multiple cost codes are selected from a displayed array of cost codes on the user device. (see at least ¶0111, allocating labor hours to charge codes; see also ¶0081, allocating charge codes and labor hours; see also Figures 33, 37 and associated text)
Claim 3:
Norton and Murakami disclose claim 1. Norton further discloses:
wherein the cost codes correspond to tasks performed by the at least one individual during the time spent on the project. (see at least ¶0105, assignment of charge codes to tasks)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the work project system including collecting labor hours for work projects of Norton with the work proportion display Murakami to provide an easily readable graphical representation of hours worked per task.
Claim 4:
While Norton and Murakami disclose claim 1, Norton does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however Murakami does disclose:
wherein the at least one slider is an array of sliders configured as a plurality of horizontal bars. (see at least Figures 4A-4B and associated text; see also ¶0050-¶0052, bar graph with task and time relationship and slider thumbs)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the work project system including collecting labor hours for work projects of Norton with the work proportion display Murakami to provide an easily readable graphical representation of hours worked per task.
Claim 5:
While Norton and Murakami disclose claim 1, Norton does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however Murakami does disclose:
wherein the at least one slider comprises at least one indicator for individually adjusting time allocated for each cost code. (see at least Figures 4A-4B and associated text; see also ¶0050-¶0052, bar graph with task and time relationship and slider thumbs)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the work project system including collecting labor hours for work projects of Norton with the work proportion display Murakami to provide an easily readable graphical representation of hours worked per task.
Claim 6:
While Norton and Murakami disclose claim 1, Norton does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however Murakami does disclose:
wherein, after all time has been allocated, extending a slider beyond a previously set position initiates both a continuous extension tool and auto-adjustment tool to decrease another slider proportionally to extension of the slider. (see at least ¶0053, when the proportion of work time of a task is changed using the slider the proportions change on the bar)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the work project system including collecting labor hours for work projects of Norton with the work proportion display Murakami to provide an easily readable graphical representation of hours worked per task.
Claim 8:
While Norton and Murakami disclose claim 1, Norton does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however Murakami does disclose:
wherein the time spent on a project determines a total percentage complete for the at least one slider. (see at least ¶0051, the sum of proportions of the bar graph equal 100%)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the work project system including collecting labor hours for work projects of Norton with the work proportion display Murakami to provide an easily readable graphical representation of hours worked per task.
Claim 9:
While Norton and Murakami disclose claim 1, Norton does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however Murakami does disclose:
wherein allocating time spent on a project is incomplete before a total percentage complete for the at least one slider is 100%. (see at least ¶0051, the sum of proportions of the bar graph equal 100%)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the work project system including collecting labor hours for work projects of Norton with the work proportion display Murakami to provide an easily readable graphical representation of hours worked per task.
Claim 10:
While Norton and Murakami disclose claim 1, Norton does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however Murakami does disclose:
wherein a selection multiple cost codes from a displayed array of cost codes on the user device results in a slider comprising one or more indicators, the number of indicators being one less than the number of selected cost codes. (see at least Figures 4A-4B and selected text, see also ¶0050, 2 slider thumbs)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the work project system including collecting labor hours for work projects of Norton with the work proportion display Murakami to provide an easily readable graphical representation of hours worked per task.
Claim 11:
Norton discloses:
A system for tracking time allocated to projects, the system comprising: a time allocation module for logging, on a user device, time spent on a project by at least one individual; (see at least ¶0132, mobile devices used to enter labor hours; see also ¶0134)
and a graphical user interface for allocating, on the user device, time spent on a project across multiple cost codes…
While Norton discloses the above limitations, Norton does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Murakami does disclose:
and a graphical user interface for allocating, on the user device, time spent on a project across multiple cost codes using at least one slider of the graphical user interface on the user device; (see at least ¶0053, employee changes work time using a slider on the bar graph)
wherein the at least one slider is configured to automatically adjust proportionally to each cost code after all time has been allocated. (see at least ¶0053, employee changes work time using a slider on the bar graph changes proportion allocated)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the work project system including collecting labor hours for work projects of Norton with the work proportion display Murakami to provide an easily readable graphical representation of hours worked per task.
Claim 12:
Norton and Murakami disclose claim 11. Norton further discloses:
wherein the multiple cost codes are selected from a displayed array of cost codes on the user device. (see at least ¶0111, allocating labor hours to charge codes; see also ¶0081, allocating charge codes and labor hours; see also Figures 33, 37 and associated text)
Claim 13:
While Norton and Murakami disclose claim 1, Norton does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Murakami does disclose:
wherein the cost codes correspond to tasks performed by the at least one individual during the time spent on the project. (see at least ¶0105, assignment of charge codes to tasks)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the work project system including collecting labor hours for work projects of Norton with the work proportion display Murakami to provide an easily readable graphical representation of hours worked per task.
Claim 14:
While Norton and Murakami disclose claim 11, Norton does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however Murakami does disclose:
wherein the at least one slider is an array of sliders configured as a plurality of horizontal bars. (see at least Figures 4A-4B and associated text; see also ¶0050-¶0052, bar graph with task and time relationship and slider thumbs)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the work project system including collecting labor hours for work projects of Norton with the work proportion display Murakami to provide an easily readable graphical representation of hours worked per task.
Claim 15:
While Norton and Murakami disclose claim 1, Norton does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however Murakami does disclose:
wherein the at least one slider comprises at least one indicator for individually adjusting time allocated for each cost code. (see at least Figures 4A-4B and associated text; see also ¶0050-¶0052, bar graph with task and time relationship and slider thumbs)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the work project system including collecting labor hours for work projects of Norton with the work proportion display Murakami to provide an easily readable graphical representation of hours worked per task.
Claim 16:
While Norton and Murakami disclose claim 11, Norton does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however Murakami does disclose:
wherein, after all time has been allocated, extending a slider beyond a previously set position initiates both a continuous extension tool and auto-adjustment tool to decrease another slider proportionally to extension of the slider. (see at least ¶0053, when the proportion of work time of a task is changed using the slider the proportions change on the bar)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the work project system including collecting labor hours for work projects of Norton with the work proportion display Murakami to provide an easily readable graphical representation of hours worked per task.
Claim 18:
While Norton and Murakami disclose claim 11, Norton does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however Murakami does disclose:
wherein the time spent on a project determines a total percentage complete for the at least one slider. (see at least ¶0051, the sum of proportions of the bar graph equal 100%)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the work project system including collecting labor hours for work projects of Norton with the work proportion display Murakami to provide an easily readable graphical representation of hours worked per task.
Claim 19:
While Norton and Murakami disclose claim 11, Norton does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however Murakami does disclose:
wherein allocating time spent on a project is incomplete before a total percentage complete for the at least one slider is 100%. (see at least ¶0051, the sum of proportions of the bar graph equal 100%)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the work project system including collecting labor hours for work projects of Norton with the work proportion display Murakami to provide an easily readable graphical representation of hours worked per task.
Claim 20:
While Norton and Murakami disclose claim 11, Norton does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however Murakami does disclose:
wherein a selection multiple cost codes from a displayed array of cost codes on the user device results in a slider comprising one or more indicators, the number of indicators being one less than the number of selected cost codes. (see at least Figures 4A-4B and selected text, see also ¶0050, 2 slider thumbs)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the work project system including collecting labor hours for work projects of Norton with the work proportion display Murakami to provide an easily readable graphical representation of hours worked per task.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton et al. (US 2017/0068933) in view of Murakami ( US 2020/0257444) further in view of Daly (US 2021/0103609).
Claim 7:
While Norton and Murakami disclose claim 1, and Murakami disclose a bar graph with slider functionality for work hours performed for a task (see ¶0048), neither explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Daly does disclose:
wherein the at least one slider comprises a slider lock tool to prevent said at least one slider from changing time allocated for a corresponding cost code. (see at least ¶0049, the interface displays equalizer type sliders used to select percentages of content and periods of time for delivering; see also ¶0077, a slider can be locked such that the percentage cannot be changed; see also Figure 12C)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the work project system including collecting labor hours for work projects of Norton and the work proportion display Murakami with the slider functionality including locking of Daly 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 17:
While Norton and Murakami disclose claim 1, and Murakami disclose a bar graph with slider functionality for work hours performed for a task (see ¶0048), neither explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Daly does disclose:
wherein the at least one slider comprises a slider lock tool to prevent said at least one slider from changing time allocated for a corresponding cost code. (see at least ¶0049, the interface displays equalizer type sliders used to select percentages of content and periods of time for delivering; see also ¶0077, a slider can be locked such that the percentage cannot be changed; see also Figure 12C)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the work project system including collecting labor hours for work projects of Norton and the work proportion display Murakami with the slider functionality including locking of Daly 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Boustany (US 9471900) discloses workforce data management including incoming data packets applying the time or hours associated with a user to a cost or job code.
Shaaban (US 2016/0037987) discloses a time Entry and Recording System and Method, which greatly enhances the features and abilities of such systems in the marketplace. Most notably, it allows the user thereof to create and generate and edit Work in Progress Reports, which may greatly optimize the profitability of any professional firm
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625