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
This is a final office action in response to the amendment filed 28 July 2026. Claims 1, 17, and 20 have been amended. Claim 16 has been canceled. Claim 21 has been newly added.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 17, and 20 and newly added claim 21 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment is insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The rejection remains pending and is updated below, as necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s amendment is sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. The rejection is respectfully withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Particularly the arguments at pages 10-13 of the Remarks herein, that that prior art of record does not teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose the amended language of the independent claims that require display of a third and fourth prompt information in response to a delete or terminate operation for the first work item. Therefore, the prior art rejection is respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that amended claim 1 as a whole integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by reciting additional elements that result in an improved user interface. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the amended claims broadly and generically recite limitations for “displaying” data in an interface, the limitations are void with specific user interactions with the interface or interface elements that improve the functioning of the interface or improve interface related technology in a manner that integrates the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter or amounts to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. As a result, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is proper and maintained.
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 1-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of managing roles and permissions for project management, without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a process, independent claim 17 recites a device, and independent claim 20 recites a product for processing role information in a project management system. Independent claims 1, 17, and 20 recite substantially similar limitations.
Taking independent claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites the following limitations:
determining, in the project management system, a role person of a first process node from role persons bound to a parent node of the first process node, based on a role person synchronization rule of the first process node in a first project, wherein the role person synchronization rule is used to indicate a rule that the first process node inherits the role person from the parent node of the first process node; and
displaying the role person of the first process node in a project management interface of the project management system;
displaying a details page of a first work item bound to a fourth process node, wherein the fourth process node is not a project root node, and the first work item establishes a binding relationship with the fourth process node in a second schedule;
displaying third prompt information in response to a delete operation for the first work item in the details page of the first work item, wherein the third prompt information is used to prompt that deleting a work item bound to a child process node in the second schedule is not supported in the details page; and
displaying fourth prompt information in response to a terminate operation for the first work item in the details page of the first work item, wherein the fourth prompt information is used to prompt that terminating a work item bound to a child process node in the second schedule is not supported in the details page.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis independent claims 1, 17, and 20 recite at least one step or act including displaying the role person of the first process node in the project management interface. Thus, the claims fall within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Under Step 2A Prong One, the limitations of claim 1 for determining a role person of a first process node form role persons bound to a parent node of the first process node, based on a role person synchronization rule and displaying the role person of the first process node, displaying a details page, and displaying prompt information upon the occurrence of an input trigger, as drafted, illustrates a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind because the steps could be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. A project manager could assign roles to team members, create rules for role assignment, establish a project schedule, set data analysis conditions, triggers, and notifications, and manage the status of tasks. Therefore, the limitations fall into the mental processes grouping and accordingly the claims recite an abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims relate to managing human behavior related to role assignments for project team members and fall within the certain methods of organizing human behavior grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, The judicial exception of claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite a processor, storage device and interface for performing the recited steps. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0137] states: “the electronic device may include a processing apparatus (for example, a central processor or a graphics processor) 701 that may perform a variety of appropriate actions and processing in accordance with a program.” The Specification does not provide additional details about the computer system/server that would distinguish it from any generic processing devices that communicate with one another in a network environment. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions, such as data gathering, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The amended limitations include limitations for displaying a details page of a work item bound to a process node and displaying prompt information in response to user input. The claimed limitation use an interface to display information, but does not include specific interface elements or interaction that improve how the interface or interface technology functions. Because the interface interactivity is broadly and generically claimed, the recited limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The display or presentation of information upon a trigger or request is extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g), 2106.05(b)(III). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor and storage device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05.
Dependent claims 2-15 and 18-19 include the abstract idea of the independent claims. The limitations of the dependent claims merely narrow the mental process/method of organizing human activity abstract idea by describing data processing rules and related to the data management steps, without significantly more. The limitations of the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application because none of the additional elements set forth any limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea implementation. There are no additional elements that transform the claim into a patent eligible idea by amounting to significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly independent claims 17 and 20 and the claims that depend therefrom are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis applied to claim 1 above. Therefore claims 1-15 and 17-21 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 and 17 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but the claims would be allowable if the aforementioned rejections are overcome.
An updated prior art search was conducted, as necessitated by amendment. Examiner analyzed amended independent claims 1, 17, and 20 in view of the prior art of record and the updated prior art search and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine these references with a reasonable expectation of success. The closest prior art of record Nagar et al. (US 8,738,414) discloses the graphical display of dependency chains with nodes to monitor the effect of dependencies on the time schedule of nodes (projects, activities, and tasks) and proactively issue warnings in case the dependency and the time schedule violate one another, including the ability to set conditions and thresholds that trigger actions across other functions for real-time status reporting. However, Nagar et al. fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose displaying third prompt information in response to a delete operation for the first work item in the details page of the first work item, wherein the third prompt information is used to prompt that deleting a work item bound to a child process node in the second schedule is not supported in the details page; and displaying fourth prompt information in response to a terminate operation for the first work item in the details page of the first work item, wherein the fourth prompt information is used to prompt that terminating a work item bound to a child process node in the second schedule is not supported in the details page as specifically claimed herein.
Since the specific ordered combined sequence of claim elements recited in claims 1, 17, and 20 can only be found as recited in Applicant’s specification, any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all the claim elements, including the features discussed above, would be the result of impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Accordingly, the prior art rejections set forth in the previous action are withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Leisten et al. (US 6,023,702) - a system platform for a synergistic, role modular work process environment. According to the inventive concept, each view must be supported by a specific workplace, enforcing the rules for the specific role. A work process information model supports the dynamic definition and use of a data base object representing a work process, both in its process and project planning modes and its execution. According to the inventive concept one object supports simultaneously all modes delimited by dynamically moving boundaries. Workplace implementation enforces over-all rules for each role in the inventive system.
Sangekar (US 2020/0394583) - Methods to identify summary paths within specific parent task domains within a project enable the efficient computation and display of summary paths in Gantt or other project management structured user interfaces. These methods are computationally more efficient than conventional critical path computations and enable a finer-grained identification of critical tasks or sub-paths. User's may generate summary paths in specific parent domains and identify critical tasks and sub-paths therein faster, with lower computational overhead, and with fewer physical actions.
Zorin et al. (US 2023/0409386) - method performs at the orchestration interface at which update information, including changes to tasks of a workflow, is received from a task manager system (TMS), where the workflow includes a set of tasks, inputs to the tasks, and outputs from the tasks. The inputs and outputs determine runtime dependencies between the tasks. Based on the update information received, the orchestration interface populates a topology of nodes and edges as a directed acyclic graph (DAG) that maps nodes to tasks and edges to runtime dependencies between tasks, based on node inputs and outputs. The orchestration interface instructs the execution of the tasks and handling dependencies by interacting with a task execution system (TES) and by traversing the DAG, the orchestration interface identifies tasks that depend on completed tasks as per the runtime dependencies and instructs the TES to execute the dependent tasks identified. If a task deletion is requested, then a specific process, step S40, is triggered, at which the OI 12 identifies the downstream nodes of the node corresponding to the task to be deleted (step S42). If such a node is found (step S44: Yes branch), the OI 12 sends an error notification to the TMS 11 (step S48), because a non-leaf node should a priori not be deleted. If no such downstream node is found (step S44: No branch), the OI 12 can safely delete the node corresponding to the task to be deleted (step S46).
Luecking et al. (US 2024/0403110) - computer implement method can create an entity close scheme including a plurality of nodes and edges connecting the plurality of nodes. The nodes represent task objects and the edges define predecessor-successor relationship between pairs of nodes. The method can execute the task objects and monitor status of the task objects. After flagging the status of a completed task object represented by a selected node to be invalid based on evaluation of results of the completed task object, the method can determine downstream nodes of the selected node, then identify contingent downstream nodes among the downstream nodes of the selected node, and flag the status of task objects represented by the contingent downstream nodes to be invalid upon completion of the task objects represented by the contingent downstream nodes.
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 LETORIA G KNIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-0485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Rutao WU can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/L.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights