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
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 12, 14 - 16 and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant's arguments against the 101 rejection of pending claims on pages 11-12: Applicant’s arguments directed to Step 2A prong 1 and Step 2A prong 2 from the 101 analysis were considered. However, these arguments are not persuasive and the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
For Step 2A-Prong 1 starting in p. 11: The Applicant argues that the pending claims are not directed to any of the abstract idea(s) identified because for the “displaying” dependency relationship information “is not practically performed in the human mind, at least because they require a client to perform the displaying step on the interface.”. However, the Examiner finds this argument is unpersuasive and respectfully disagrees. Because the Examiner never considered this particular step to fall under the abstract idea of a mental process, and thus is rendered moot. However, the claims still recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity in the forms of “commercial or legal interactions” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” since the claim limitations are reciting steps for establishing dependency relationship information between working items and their sub-tasks (e.g. sub-objects) to display them and represent completion of these items or objects. These limitations at least encompasses commercial or legal interactions related to agreements in the form of contracts or legal obligations when keeping track of special details related to a business project such as a “software development project” that includes working items with “special item” details such as “requirements throughput, quality, cycle, and manpower estimation and assessment” (see ¶0027 - 29 from Applicant disclosure). But also, these limitations can also be considered as following rules or instructions when establishing dependency relationship information, wherein such working items and sub-tasks related/associated require to be completed, as previously determined.
For Step 2A-Prong 2 starting in p. 12: The Applicant alleges that the claims integrate, the judicial exception identified, into a practical application and further alleges that the amended claim features related to establishing “a dependency relationship” via a “dependency configuration operation” improves “granularity of the dependency relationship” and “clear management of manpower and progress promotion in the work item”. However, the Examiner finds this argument is unpersuasive and respectfully disagrees. Because the element features in the claims, as asserted by the Applicant, are part of the abstract idea itself when establishing the “dependency relationship” between sets of sub-objects that are part of their corresponding work items via a “dependency configuration operation” that is performed by a computer broadly claimed. Thus, these claim features and its corresponding limitations are invoking the use of a generic computer (e.g. “apply it”) or reciting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer used as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). In other words, such particular implementations by the “dependency configuration operation” performed by the computer, are not reflecting the alleged “improvement” of how the computer functioning is specifically improved in “project management systems” and are simply improving the abstract idea(s) itself. Therefore, these feature element(s) claimed are merely, instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.04(d)(1)) for more details of computer functioning improvements.
Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 101 rejection for these pending claims.
Regarding to Applicant's arguments of rejections under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 for the pending claims on pages 12 – 14: Applicant’s arguments regarding these amended limitation steps in the pending claims are not persuasive and the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Because Applicant is focusing on each prior art teaching, rather than focusing on the actual language claimed in each claim limitation as well as the breadth of the claim, and how their corresponding limitation steps are different from the prior art teachings. Rather, the steps disclose a broader language that the prior art Morgan, still reasonably satisfies and teaches in light of the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim language. Thus, upon review of the pending amended claim limitations, and in response to Applicant arguments for claim 1’s limitation directed to “establishing” a “dependency relationship” between sets of sub-objects that are part of their corresponding work items via a “dependency configuration operation”, wherein configuring a “work item as a dependent object” comprises of “searching data that a user has permission to access, and matching the data according to an instance name” is still reasonably taught by Morgan. Thus, this limitation is reasonably taught under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) by Morgan as the system “CA 114 can be configured to retrieve and display various information in respect of the incoming/outgoing work items in the incoming/outgoing work item information panes 1004/1006” that includes at least “the creator ID; the date created; the work item title; the work item description; the scheduled start; the scheduled end; the assignee identifier (or name associated therewith)” and “retrieve the work item information to be displayed in the incoming and outgoing work item information panes 1004 and 1006 by requesting the information from the SA 104 using the incoming and outgoing work item identifiers associated with the dependency”, in accordance to the searching and matching work item data example given in ¶0060 from Applicant disclosure (see ¶0147 – 148 and Fig. 8; Morgan). Also refer to ¶0164 from Morgan, for another example wherein the system can compare data related to scheduled dates for incoming/outgoing work items and if the system doesn’t have it, it will request it from the “SA 104” using the work item identifiers, and “If the scheduled end of the incoming work item is the same or earlier than the scheduled start of the outgoing work item the CA 114 determines the dependency is not scheduled-broken.”
As for the arguments against 35 USC § 103 rejection given in claim 7, the Examiner notes that they are rendered moot since the Applicant did not amend claim 7 with the new claim language previously discussed and such corresponding arguments do not apply in this particular rejection. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 rejections for these respective pending claims.
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. The analysis of this claimed invention recited in the claims begins in view of independent claim 14, the most representative claim of the independent claims set 1, 14 and 20, as follows:
At Step 1: Claims 1 - 13 falls under statutory category of a process, claims 14 – 19 are directed to a machine while claim 20 is directed to an article of manufacture.
At Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 14 (representative of claim 1 and 20) recites an abstract idea in the following limitations:
…establish…a dependency relationship between a first sub-object of a first work item and a second sub-object of a second work item based on a dependency configuration operation wherein the dependency configuration operation comprises configuring a work item as a dependent object, the dependent object comprises data of a work item, and the configuring the work item as the dependent object comprises: searching data that a user has permission to access, and matching the data according to an instance name;
display…dependency relationship information indicating the dependency relationship, wherein the dependency relationship is used to represent that opening or completion of the first sub-object depends on a status of the second sub-object.
Generally, and as disclosed in the specification in ¶0004, this claimed invention provide the construction of “a tool or a platform based on data management (for example, a project management system)” that by “creating a standardized business process, project launch can be accelerated, and project risks can be avoided”. However, the abstract idea(s) of a certain method of organizing human activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II) is recited in claim 14 in the form of “commercial or legal interactions”. Specifically, the abstract idea is recited in the step of “establish… a dependency relationship between a first sub-object of a first work item and a second sub-object of a second work item…” and then “display” such “dependency relationship information” that is used to “represent opening or completion of the first sub-object depends on a status of the second sub-object”. Because establishing dependency relationship information between working items and their sub-tasks (e.g. sub-objects) to display them and represent completion of these items or objects at least encompasses commercial or legal interactions related to agreements in the form of contracts or legal obligations when keeping track of special details related to a business project such as a “software development project” that includes working items with “special item” details such as “requirements throughput, quality, cycle, and manpower estimation and assessment” (see ¶0027 - 29 from Applicant disclosure). Similarly, these steps also falls under the abstract idea sub-group of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” since establishing dependency relationship information between working items and their sub-tasks (e.g. sub-objects) to display them and represent their completion requires following rules or instructions.
At Step 2A Prong 2: For independent claims 1, 14 and 20, The judicial exception(s) or abstract idea previously identified is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)). The claims recite the additional element(s) of one or more processors (from claims 14 and 20), a non-transitory memory (from claim 14); a project management system and a first work item display interface (from claims 1, 14 and 20) and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (from claim 20). These additional elements, individually and in combination, and while considering the claims as a whole, are merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, these steps are recited as being performed by the computer. The computer used is recited at a high level of generality that is being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions for establishing working item relationship information to then display it. Thus, these steps mentioned above are further describing and applying the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the technological components are being improved, while distinguishing in the claim language, the performing limitations from functions that generic computer components can perform.
Step 2B: For independent claims 1, 14 and 20, these claims do not provide an inventive concept. The recited additional elements of the claim(s) are the following: one or more processors (from claims 14 and 20), a non-transitory memory (from claim 14); a project management system and a first work item display interface (from claims 1, 14 and 20) and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (from claim 20). These additional elements are not sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception or abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05). Because, as indicated in Step 2A Prong 2, these additional element(s) claimed are merely, instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
For dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19, the same analysis is incorporated. Due to their dependency to the independent claims analyzed, these claims cover or fall under the same abstract idea(s) of a method of organizing human activity. They describe additional limitations steps of:
Claims 2-13 and 15-19: further describes the abstract idea of the information processing method and further describing the selection and configuration of “working items” based on “dependency types”, their deletion and displaying their information and its details. Thus, being directed to the abstract idea group of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” as these steps encompasses commercial or legal interactions related to agreements in the form of contracts or legal obligations and requires following rules or instructions.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: For dependent claims 7 - 11 and 17 – 19, these claims recite the additional elements of: performing loop check (from claim 7); a preset dependency switch (from claim 8); a first work item configuration interface and a first dependency configuration interface (from claims 9 and 17); a second dependency addition control and a second dependency configuration interface (from claims 10 and 18); a first sub-task information configuration interface and a third dependency configuration interface (from claims 11 and 19). These additional elements recited are invoking computers merely used as a tool to perform or “apply” the abstract idea(s) to the existing process of establishing dependency relationships between working items and sub-objects to display them as relationship information. Thus, amounting to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f) and (f)(2)). Accordingly, for the same reasons stated above, these additional element(s) claimed cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1- 6 and 8 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morgan (U.S. Pub No. 20240095618 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 20:
This independent claim set is represented by claim 14
Morgan teaches:
one or more processors; and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to: (See Fig. 2 (202 and 210): teaches “Computer processing system 200 includes at least one processing unit 202” which further includes “a system memory 206 (e.g. a BIOS), volatile memory 208 (e.g. random access memory such as one or more DRAM modules), and non-volatile memory 210 (e.g. one or more hard disk or solid state drives).” (see ¶0075 – 77).)
establish, in a project management system, a dependency relationship between a first sub-object of a first work item and a second sub-object of a second work item based on a dependency configuration operation wherein the dependency configuration operation comprises configuring a work item as a dependent object, the dependent object comprises data of a work item, and the configuring the work item as the dependent object comprises: searching data that a user has permission to access, and matching the data according to an instance name; (In ¶0158; Fig. 1 (112A and 114); Figs. 5 – 10; Fig. 14; Fig. 11 (1108): teaches “At 1108”, that the system’s “client application (CA)” (directed to the project management system; see ¶0088) or “CA 114 detects a create dependency user interaction” wherein “the create dependency user interaction may comprise a first input selecting one of the create blocked-by control or create blocking dependency control and a second input dragging from the selected control to or near to the second work item UI element” which is directed to the dependency configuration operation claimed, in accordance to the example given for dependency configuration operation in ¶0050 from Applicant’s disclosure. Further, in Fig. 10 shows the “Dependency information pane 1002 includes an incoming work item information pane 1004, an outgoing work item information page 1006, dependency indicator 1008, and a delete dependency control 1010” which is directed to the first and second sub-object of their respective first or second work item (see ¶0146). See Fig. 7 and ¶0133 for dependency between “work item user interface elements 402 and 404” and Fig. 14 and ¶0187 wherein “depicts a timeline interface in which the work item corresponding to work item UI element 1402 is the incoming work item in two dependency relationships: one, 1404, with the work item corresponding to work item UI element 1406; one, 1408, with the work item corresponding to work item UI element 1410”. As for the claimed configuration of a work item as a dependent object, that includes data of a work item, wherein is configured by searching data that a user have access permissions and matching the data based on an instance name is satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) as the system CA 114 can be configured to retrieve and display various information in respect of the incoming/outgoing work items in the incoming/outgoing work item information panes 1004/1006” that includes at least “the creator ID; the date created; the work item title; the work item description; the scheduled start; the scheduled end; the assignee identifier (or name associated therewith)” and “retrieve the work item information to be displayed in the incoming and outgoing work item information panes 1004 and 1006 by requesting the information from the SA 104 using the incoming and outgoing work item identifiers associated with the dependency” (see ¶0147 – 148 and Fig. 8), in accordance to the searching and matching work item data example given in ¶0060 from Applicant disclosure. See ¶0164 for another example wherein the system can compare data related to scheduled dates for incoming/outgoing work items and if the system doesn’t have it, it will request it from the “SA 104” using the work item identifiers, and “If the scheduled end of the incoming work item is the same or earlier than the scheduled start of the outgoing work item the CA 114 determines the dependency is not scheduled-broken.”)
display, in a first work item display interface of a display, dependency relationship information indicating the dependency relationship, wherein the dependency relationship is used to represent that opening or completion of the first sub-object depends on a status of the second sub-object. (In ¶0187; Fig. 3; Fig. 10; Fig. 11 (1116); Fig. 14: teaches in “FIG. 14 depicts a timeline interface in which the work item corresponding to work item UI element 1402 is the incoming work item in two dependency relationships: one, 1404, with the work item corresponding to work item UI element 1406; one, 1408, with the work item corresponding to work item UI element 1410. This indicates that the neither of the work items corresponding to UI elements 1406 and 1410 can be commenced until the work item corresponding to UI element 1402 is complete.” Refer to ¶0146 wherein “CA 114 may be configured to display a dependency information pane such as pane 1002 of FIG. 10” and refer to ¶0169 wherein “At 1116, the CA 114 displays the dependency path with the appearance determined at 1114.”.)
Regarding claims 2 and 15:
Morgan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 14, respectively.
Morgan further teaches:
wherein the dependency configuration operation further comprises at least one of the following sub-operations: configuring a dependency type or selecting, from the dependent object, a sub-object as a dependency item. (In ¶0126; Figs. 5 – 10: teaches an example as illustrated in Fig. 6 wherein “the CA 114 can be configured to detect a create dependency user interaction comprising a first interaction component that selects a create dependency control 318 of a first work item UI element (in this case UI element 402), a second interaction component that traces a path to a position at or near a second work item user interface element (in this case UI element 404) and selects the second work item UI element” and the “Selection of the second work item UI element may be part of the second interaction component (e.g. occurring automatically on the path reaching the second work item UI element or a specific portion thereof) or may involve a third interaction component”. Similarly, in Fig. 7, “dependency paths can be displayed with an arrow: a dependency path pointing from a first work item UI element to a second work item UI element indicating the work item corresponding to the second work item UI element is dependent on/blocked by the work item corresponding to the first work item UI element” (see ¶0140), in accordance to the example for dependency configuration given in ¶0053 – 54 and Fig. 2B from Applicant’s disclosure.)
Regarding claims 3 and 16:
Morgan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 13, respectively.
Morgan further teaches:
wherein the configuring the work item as a dependent object comprises: displaying candidate work item information; and (In ¶0146 – 147; Fig. 10: teaches in Fig. 10 which illustrates “Dependency information pane 1002 includes an incoming work item information pane 1004, an outgoing work item information page 1006, dependency indicator 1008, and a delete dependency control 1010” wherein “information can include, for example, one or more of: the work item identifier; the work item type; the creator ID; the date created; the work item title; the work item description; the scheduled start; the scheduled end; the assignee identifier (or name associated therewith); the actual start (if started); actual end (if finished)”, in accordance to the candidate work item information example given in ¶0056 from Applicant’s disclosure.)
determining, in response to a selection operation for the candidate work item information, a work item as the dependent object, wherein the candidate work item information comprises at least one of first work item information and/or associated work item information of the first work item, and the associated work item information comprises at least one of a work item of a first project space to which the first work item belongs or a work item of a second project space. (In ¶0151; Figs. 10, 13 – 14 and 19: teaches that “CA may also, or alternatively, be configured to detect a display dependency information user interaction in relation to a work item UI element (e.g. hovering, dwelling, contacting, clicking on, or otherwise interacting with a work item UI element or part thereof). In this case, the CA 114 may be configured to display a dependency information pane which provides information on all dependencies the work item corresponding to the work item UI element that has been interacted with is involved in”. As for the descriptive material that holds no patentable weight of associated work item information comprising of work items that pertain to different project spaces, this is satisfied by this prior art as illustrated in Figs. 13 – 14 wherein “large projects are typically broken up into epics” which “in turn, are broken up into stories (the basic work item for a project, also referred to as issues in the Jira project management tool). Depending on the size and scope of a project, multiple epics may be grouped into an initiative (the project having one or more initiatives).” (see ¶0034))
Regarding claim 4:
Morgan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3.
Morgan further teaches:
wherein the displaying candidate work item information comprises: if the associated work item information comprises the work item of the first project space and the work item of the second project space, displaying the associated work item information by project space grouping. (See Fig. 13 - 16: teaches and illustrates different “large projects” that are “typically broken up into epics” which are “broken up into stories (the basic work item for a project, also referred to as issues in the Jira project management tool). Depending on the size and scope of a project, multiple epics may be grouped into an initiative (the project having one or more initiatives). (see ¶0034).)
Regarding claim 5:
Morgan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Morgan further teaches:
wherein the first sub-object comprises a sub-process node and/or a subtask of the first work item; and the second sub-object comprises a sub-process node and/or a subtask of the second work item (see Fig. 16: teaches “the CA 114 is configured to provide the row labels (which in this case represent epics) as UI elements that, when interacted with (e.g. by clicking or contacting) expand to show associated sub-level work items (in this case stories)” (see ¶0189) and “provides an example of a sub-work item of a parent work item being involved in a dependency relationship with a different parent work item” (see ¶0191).)
Regarding claim 6:
Morgan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Morgan further teaches:
further comprising one or more of the following: deleting the dependency relationship information in response to deleting the first sub-object of the first work item; and deleting the dependency relationship information in response to deleting the second sub-object of the second work item. (In ¶0150; Fig. 10 (1010): teaches that “If CA 114 detects activation of the delete dependency control 1010 it deletes the dependency described by the dependency information pane—for example by generating and communicating a delete dependency message to the CS 104” as shown in Fig. 10.)
Regarding claim 8:
Morgan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Morgan further teaches:
further comprising: in response to a preset dependency switch being turned on, displaying a dependency addition control and added dependency relationship information in the first work item display interface; and (In ¶0127; Fig. 7: teaches this conditional limitation as an example wherein “control is via a pointing device such as a mouse, the first interaction component may be activating a button of the pointing device button while the cursor is over or proximate the create dependency control 318, the second interaction component may be moving the mouse pointer to or near to the second work item UI element 404. Selection of the second work item UI element 404 may automatically occur on the pointer reaching a particular position with respect to the second work item UI element 404. Alternatively, selection of the second work item UI element 404 may require a third interaction component such as releasing the button while the cursor is over or proximate the second work item UI element 404.”)
in response to the preset dependency switch being turned off, stopping displaying the dependency addition control and the added dependency relationship information. (In ¶0150 ¶0186; Fig. 13 (1314); Figs. 6 – 7; Fig. 10 (1010); Fig. 13 (1314); and Fig. 19: teaches this conditional limitation as “CA 114 detects activation of the delete dependency control 1010 it deletes the dependency described by the dependency information pane” as shown in Fig. 10 (see ¶0146 also) and illustrated Fig. 19 for “unlink issue”, in accordance to the example given in ¶0092 and Fig. 3A from Applicant disclosure. Refer to ¶0186 and Fig. 13 wherein “Furthermore, work item UI element 1312 includes a linked work item indicator 1314 indicating that the corresponding work item is involved in a dependency relationship. No dependency path extending from work item UI element 1312 is, however, displayed” and this “could alternatively be the result of the other work item not being displayed, for example due to an active filter causing it not to be shown” which is another example of a preset switch being turned off and thus, stopping displaying dependency addition control and other added dependency relationship information. Finally, in ¶0094, “the CA 114 may display additional controls which can be used to display/hide display of particular types of work items, display/hide display of work items assigned to/not assigned to a particular team or individual, and/or apply other filters.”)
Regarding claims 9 and 17:
Morgan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 14, respectively.
Morgan further teaches:
further comprising: displaying a flowchart of the first work item and a first dependency addition control in a first work item configuration interface of the project management system; and (See Figs. 3, 13 - 16: illustrates interfaces with flowcharts that include different work items (see Figs. 13 – 15) and their “sub-level work items” as shown at least in Fig. 16 (element 1604). Specifically, in Fig. 16, illustrates “Work Item 1” with a first pendency between “Work item d” and “Work item e”.)
displaying, when a first sub-process node in the flowchart is in a selected status, a first dependency configuration interface in response to a trigger operation for the first dependency addition control, wherein the first dependency configuration interface is configured to receive the dependency configuration operation for adding the dependency relationship to the first sub-process node. (In ¶0189 – 191; Figs. 3 -7 and 16: teaches this conditional limitation as “FIG. 16 depicts an interface in which shows two types of work items: in this case epics and stories. To do so, the CA 114 is configured to provide the row labels (which in this case represent epics) as UI elements that, when interacted with (e.g. by clicking or contacting) expand to show associated sub-level work items (in this case stories)” (directed to in response to a trigger operation). Further, in Fig. 16 shows “row label 1602 (related to the epic with title “NextGen Front-end”) has been activated to expand and show its component stories 1604 (e.g. Contextual Menu Sections, GSA Requirements, etc.)” (directed to receiving dependency configuration operation for adding dependency relationship to the first sub-process node) and “provides an example of a sub-work item of a parent work item being involved in a dependency relationship with a different parent work item”)
Regarding claims 10 and 18:
Morgan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 14, respectively.
Morgan further teaches:
further comprising: displaying a flowchart of the first work item and a second dependency addition control in a first work item details page of the project management system; and (See Fig. 16: illustrates “Work Item 1” with a second pendency between “Work item g” and “epic 1608” element from “Work item 5”. See Fig. 15 for other dependencies being displayed between “Work item 1” and other working items)
displaying, when a second sub-process node in the flowchart is in a selected status, a second dependency configuration interface in response to a trigger operation for the second dependency addition control status, wherein the second dependency configuration interface is configured to receive the dependency configuration operation for adding the dependency relationship to the second sub-process node. (In ¶0189 – 191; Fig. 16: teaches this conditional limitation as “FIG. 16 depicts an interface in which shows two types of work items: in this case epics and stories. To do so, the CA 114 is configured to provide the row labels (which in this case represent epics) as UI elements that, when interacted with (e.g. by clicking or contacting) expand to show associated sub-level work items (in this case stories)” (directed to in response to a trigger operation). Further, in Fig. 16 shows “row label 1602 (related to the epic with title “NextGen Front-end”) has been activated to expand and show its component stories 1604 (e.g. Contextual Menu Sections, GSA Requirements, etc.)” (directed to receiving dependency configuration operation for adding dependency relationship to the second sub-process node) and “provides an example of a sub-work item of a parent work item being involved in a dependency relationship with a different parent work item”)
Regarding claims 11 and 19:
Morgan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 14, respectively.
Morgan further teaches:
further comprising: displaying a third dependency addition control in a first sub-task information configuration interface in the project management system; and (See Fig. 16: illustrates “Work Item 1” with a pendency between “Work item g” and “epic 1608” element from “Work item 5” (that can be the third dependency addition control; ¶0191). See Fig. 15 for other dependencies being displayed between “Work item 1” and other working items.)
displaying a third dependency configuration interface in response to a trigger operation for the third dependency addition control, wherein the third dependency configuration interface is configured to receive the dependency configuration operation for adding the dependency relationship to the first sub-task. (In ¶0189 – 191; Figs. 15 - 16: teaches this conditional limitation as “FIG. 16 depicts an interface in which shows two types of work items: in this case epics and stories. To do so, the CA 114 is configured to provide the row labels (which in this case represent epics) as UI elements that, when interacted with (e.g. by clicking or contacting) expand to show associated sub-level work items (in this case stories)” (directed to in response to a trigger operation). Further, in Fig. 16 shows “row label 1602 (related to the epic with title “NextGen Front-end”) has been activated to expand and show its component stories 1604 (e.g. Contextual Menu Sections, GSA Requirements, etc.)” (directed to receiving dependency configuration operation for adding dependency relationship to the first sub-task) and “provides an example of a sub-work item of a parent work item being involved in a dependency relationship with a different parent work item”. Examiner notes that the third dependency configuration addition control that can be for in response to a trigger operation, can be as well the expansion of other “Work items” to display other dependencies with these other work items.)
Regarding claim 12:
Morgan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Morgan further teaches:
displaying a dependency relationship information list of the first sub-object in the first work item display interface, (In ¶0189; Fig. 16 (1602 and 1604): teaches “FIG. 16 depicts an interface in which shows two types of work items: in this case epics and stories. To do so, the CA 114 is configured to provide the row labels (which in this case represent epics) as UI elements that, when interacted with (e.g. by clicking or contacting) expand to show associated sub-level work items (in this case stories)”.)
wherein the dependency relationship information list comprises at least one of the following fields: a dependency item, the dependent object, and a dependency type. (In ¶0191 – 191; Fig. 16 (1602 and 1604): teaches “In FIG. 16, row label 1602 (related to the epic with title “NextGen Front-end”) has been activated to expand and show its component stories 1604 (e.g. Contextual Menu Sections, GSA Requirements, etc.)”. Further, “FIG. 16 also provides an example of a sub-work item of a parent work item being involved in a dependency relationship with a different parent work item.”)
Regarding claim 13:
Morgan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Morgan further teaches:
further comprising: displaying a status indication identifier in association with the sub-object of the first work item, wherein the status indication identifier comprises at least one of the following: a first indication identifier, a second indication identifier, and a third indication identifier, wherein the first indication identifier indicates a status that should be open but is not open due to a dependency item is not completed; the second indication identifier indicates an in-progress status; and the third indication identifier indicates a completed status. (See Fig. 16 (1604 and “done” indicator): teaches in Fig. 16 that sub-object of a first work item is interpreted as clicking and expanding “epics” or “row labels” as “UI elements” (see “row label 1602”), that further shows “sub-level work items” or “stories” (i.e. “component stories 1604 (e.g. Contextual Menu Sections, GSA Requirements, etc.)”) (see ¶0189 – 190) that further includes status indicators shown as “done” which is directed to the third indication identifier for a completed status, as claimed.)
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan (U.S. Pub No. 20240095618 A1) in view of Gura (U.S. Pub No. 20080127041 A1).
Regarding claim 7:
Morgan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Morgan does not explicitly teach the abilities of performing a loop check for the dependency relationship before being established and only establish it if the check is passed. However, Gura teaches:
wherein the method further comprises: performing loop check on the to-be-established dependency relationship in response to the dependency configuration operation; and (In ¶0425; Fig. 9 (900 - 904); Figs. 12B – 12C and 12D: teaches that “the user utilizes the conflict resolution interface to resolve link conflicts in step 1276”, in accordance to the example given in ¶0062 - 63 from Applicant disclosure. Refer to ¶0331 – 335 wherein “the link validation process of FIG. 9 starts at step 900. In step 902, the user links individual subproject plans via predecessor and successor assignments” and in “step 904, a view is automatically displayed to allow the user to initiate execution of filters and/or macros that facilitate the validation of links between project plans. In step 904, the computing application executes filters and/or macros to perform the following checks: (1) for each Get task, check for a missing external predecessor; (2) for each Give task, check for a missing external successor; and (3) check for schedule conflicts.”)
establishing the dependency relationship in response to the check being passed, (In ¶0339; Fig. 9 (914): teaches that “If inquiry step 906 determines that no exception report records are generated in step 904 (i.e., no errors or conflicts are identified in step 904), then the process ends at step 914”.)
wherein the loop check comprises that a superior dependent object of the second sub-object does not comprise the first sub-object. (In ¶0404; Fig. 9 (900 - 904); Fig. 12B (1222): teaches this negative limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) as an example when revising schedule conflicts in an “integrated plan level” wherein at “step 1222, the computing application automatically performs a first link integrity test that checks if a predecessor field for a Get task of a project plan includes an unexpected (i.e., invalid) directory path name. In this case, an unexpected directory path name indicates a directory path that that is not associated with the project plan being analyzed for schedule conflicts. If an expected (i.e., valid) directory path name is included in the predecessor field, then the first link integrity test passes; otherwise, the first test fails”. A “get task” is defined as a “dependency” (see ¶0122).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morgan to provide the abilities of performing a loop check for the dependency relationship before being established and only establish it if the check is passed, as taught by Gura in order to provide “a technique for automating and integrating project task validation activities” and to “facilitate the validation of tasks and assure the quality of a baseline of a project” (¶0070 and ¶0099; Gura), see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin (U.S. Pub No. 20260079613 A1) is pertinent because it “provides a data processing method and apparatus, an electronic device, and a storage medium, to implement data management and display across applications, and enable users to clearly learn project information between applications based on a displayed view, so as to implement joint management of a plurality of applications, improve the management efficiency, and achieve a technical effect of meeting management needs of users.”
Schulz (U.S. Pub No. 20150012141 A1) is pertinent because it is a “system [that] can store a workflow-aware object of a plurality of workflow-aware objects, wherein the workflow-aware object represents at least one component of an automation system. A computation component can be associated with the workflow-aware object, and have an interface to receive specific data of the automation system. The computation component can compute a workflow item based on a workflow item profile with user related information, and based on the specific data of the automation system, wherein the workflow item profile specifies an object reference to the at least one component of the automation system, and wherein the user related information is configured for retrieval of a user identifier associated with the automation system engineer. A workflow item collector can identify the workflow item based on predefined identification rules for communication to the automation system engineer.”
Johnson (U.S. Patent No. 9569255 B1) is pertinent because it “relates to, among other things, systems, methods, computer-readable media, techniques, and methodologies for executing a workflow for a work item using an on-device persistent state machine-based architecture. The state machine may include multiple states that correspond to stages of execution in the workflow. Each state in the state machine may be associated with one or more tasks to be executed in connection with that state. The state machine may further specify one or more state transitions for each state of the state machine.”
Uren (U.S. Pub No. 20230351282 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to project planning, and more specifically to preparing and optimizing project plans.”
Araki (U.S. Pub No. 20120278118 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to an information processing system, a recording medium, and an information processing method. In particular, the present invention relates to an information processing system, a recording medium, and an information processing method used for a product development project.”
Chung (U.S. Pub No. 20130179208 A1) is pertinent because it “provide workflow task creation and customization”
Ouchi (U.S. Pub No. 20030078820 A1) is pertinent because it is “related to automation of business or manufacturing processes control and tracking using workflow technology where the process is represented in the form of a route, a step-by-step description of the process.”
Davies (U.S. Pub No. 20200327467 A1) is pertinent because it “relates generally project management, and particularly to a method, computer program and computer system for automated project management and monitoring issues or obstacles which arise through the project life time.”
Dromgold (U.S. Pub No. 20070150327 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to a method and system for assisting in the management of projects.”
Kulkarni (U.S. Pub No. 20230186203 A1) is pertinent because it “relate[s] to an intelligent dependency management system that may identify dependencies associated with a project using an artificial intelligence model and thereby reduce overall planning efforts associated with identifying, tracking, or otherwise managing dependencies among work items that are scheduled to carry out a project plan.”
Thouzeau (U.S. Pub No. 20200342549 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to complex tasks, particularly to methods and systems for providing a graphical representation of a complex task, for example in product manufacture.”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ivonnemary Rivera Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-6158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/IVONNEMARY RIVERA GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights