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 action is in reply to the amendments and remarks filed on 20 July 2026.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 July 2026 and 27 July 2026 were filed after the mailing date of the initial disclosure but before the close of prosecution. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome the double patenting rejections previously raised. Those rejections are respectfully maintained.
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome the 103 rejection previously raised. Those rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 20 July 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the proposed combination of references fails to teach or suggest all of the claimed features. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Aleong in at least Figs. 24-28 and [0086-0091] illustrates and describes user interfaces providing access to workflows and project steps, i.e. work unit records, managed in the collaboration environment, the workflows and project steps having a specified approval status being Approve, Deny, Pending, or Deny-Close. Gauger in at least [0249-0259] describes a change manager as part of an interface that provides access to work items for collaboration, change requests exist in submitted, acknowledged, delegated, approved, approved with modifications or rejected states, see also Figs. 34-38)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to provide selectable approval statuses for work items where edits can be made to include techniques for requesting changes and tracking the change requests status because each of the elements were known but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same function as they did individually. By including a change request approval status in the interface capabilities, the combination ensures that the collaborative environment allows for the visualization of ongoing projects and workflows including any changes requested or in process which allows for easy and complete notification/information sharing between team members and provides archiving of all project documents and information for later retrieval (Gauger [0018-0023]).
Applicant argues that the combination fails to establish the findings necessary to support a conclusion of obviousness. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Aleong discloses a plurality of selectable approval states but does not explicitly recite a changes requested state or status. Gauger is combined to teach such a selectable status or state represented in a collaborative project management environment.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, each of the elements were known but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same function as they did individually. Additionally, the rejection is not merely relying on a conclusory statement but additionally recites that by including a change request approval status in the interface capabilities, the combination ensures that the collaborative environment allows for the visualization of ongoing projects and workflows including any changes requested or in process which allows for easy and complete notification/information sharing between team members and provides archiving of all project documents and information for later retrieval (Gauger [0018-0023]).
Applicant argues that the office action fails to establish a reasonable expectation of success. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The office action specifically rejects the claims with grounds under double patenting and 35 U.S.C 103. The cited references are combined to teach each and every limitation of the claimed invention. The combination is supported with both a KSR rationale and a motivational statement. All statutory requirements of the examiner/office have been met by the rejection and are supported by the cited references and MPEP guidance.
Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. All rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12282898. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the broader claims of the instant application are anticipated by the narrower claims of the patent.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleong et al. (US 2008/0040140) in view of Gauger (US 2007/0192156).
As per Claim 1 Aleong teaches:
A system configured to facilitate user engagement with work unit records of a collaboration environment, the system comprising: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
effectuate communication of user interface information from a server to a remotely located client computing platform associated with a user over a network connection so that the remotely located client computing platform presents a user interface of a collaboration environment (Aleong in at least [0008] describe es the SharePoint server that provides server capabilities facilitating information sharing across networks, these tools are supported over the intranet, extranet and web applications across an enterprise within one integrated platform enabling collaboration and content management, Figs. 12-13 also illustrate a Microsoft Project Server as is further described in at least [0067-0070], [0081] describes the integration toolkit allowing for multiple server configuration scenarios, the program milestone component is configured to interface with the collaboration environment as is described in the ABSTRACT, Figs. 1-28 illustrate user interfaces to present information to any user accessing work in the collaboration environment),
the user interface providing access to a work unit record for a unit of work managed by the collaboration environment, the work unit record specifying an approval state of the unit of work, potential approval states including an approved state and a rejected state (Aleong in at least Figs. 24-28 and [0086-0091] illustrates and describes user interfaces providing access to workflows and project steps, i.e. work unit records, managed in the collaboration environment, the workflows and project steps having a specified approval status being Approve, Deny, Pending, or Deny-Close); and
update, at the server, the work unit record based on user input into the remotely located client computing platform characterizing a selection from a set of user interface elements displayed in the user interface, different user interface elements in the set of user interface elements corresponding to different ones of the potential approval states, such that the selection causes the approval state to be specified as one of the potential approval states, so that the work unit record specifies the approval state of the unit of work in accordance with the selection (Aleong in at least [0073] describes real time tracking of specific tasks that need to be performed, [0084-0091] describes the workflow customization and approve process steps illustrated in at least Figs. 24-28 where the system is updated based on selections in the interface including approval status inputs for work items that trigger alerts or notifications that analysis requests need approval or are awaiting approval).
Aleong demonstrates the ability to offer two or more selectable approval statuses but does not explicitly recite the selectable status for a changes requested state. However, Gauger teaches a project management system that utilizes network based interactions so that information is provided and accessible to authorized team members for collaboration (Abstract). Gauger further teaches:
the user interface providing access to a work unit record for a unit of work managed by the collaboration environment, the work unit record specifying an approval state of the unit of work, potential approval states including a changes requested state (Gauger in at least [0249-0259] describes a change manager as part of an interface that provides access to work items for collaboration, change requests exist in submitted, acknowledged, delegated, approved, approved with modifications or rejected states, see also Figs. 34-38)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to provide selectable approval statuses for work items where edits can be made to include techniques for requesting changes and tracking the change requests status because each of the elements were known but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same function as they did individually. By including a change request approval status in the interface capabilities, the combination ensures that the collaborative environment allows for the visualization of ongoing projects and workflows including any changes requested or in process which allows for easy and complete notification/information sharing between team members and provides archiving of all project documents and information for later retrieval (Gauger [0018-0023]).
As per Claim 2 Aleong further teaches:
wherein: selection of a first user interface element causes the work unit record to specify the approved state; and selection of a third user interface element causes the work unit record to specify the rejected state (Aleong in at least Fig. 26 illustrates selectable interface elements that specify an approval state including approved or denied/rejected).
Aleong does not explicitly recite a changes requested state but Gauger further teaches:
selection of a second user interface element causes the work unit record to specify the changes requested state (Gauger in at least [0249-0259] describes a change manager as part of an interface that provides access to work items for collaboration, change requests exist in submitted, acknowledged, delegated, approved, approved with modifications or rejected states, see also Figs. 34-38);
Gauger is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 3 Aleong does not explicitly recite but Gauger further teaches:
wherein updating the work unit record to specify the changes requested state causes a second work unit record for a second unit of work to be generated (Gauger in at least [0249-0259] describes a change manager as part of an interface that provides access to work items for collaboration, change requests exist in submitted, acknowledged, delegated, approved, approved with modifications or rejected states, the system tracks all modifications and updates the records automatically if the request contains an attachment or other documentation, suggestion, or other detailed information, etc. see also Figs. 34-38);
Gauger is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 4 Aleong does not explicitly recite but Gauger further teaches:
wherein the second work unit record includes a description of one or more changes to be made to a content item associated with the work unit record (Gauger in at least [0249-0259] describes a change manager as part of an interface that provides access to work items for collaboration, change requests exist in submitted, acknowledged, delegated, approved, approved with modifications or rejected states, the system tracks all modifications and updates the records automatically if the request contains an attachment or other documentation, suggestion, or other detailed information, etc. see also Figs. 34-38);
Gauger is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 5 Aleong does not explicitly recite but Gauger further teaches:
responsive to obtaining the selection of the second user interface element, effectuate presentation of a set of recommended revision instructions (Gauger [0249-0255] describe response to requesting a change, the interface follows a regimented and automated work flow approval process, Fig.37-38 illustrate presenting information or instructions relating to the change such as attached reference documents or the change request description);
obtain further user input including further selection of one or more recommended revision instructions from the set of recommended revision instructions (Gauger [0249-0255] describe, in response to requesting a change, the interface follows a regimented and automated work flow approval process and allows for the description of a change as well as selecting or attaching requested documents and reference documents, Fig.37-38 illustrate presenting information or instructions relating to the change such as attached reference documents or the change request description); and
wherein the second work unit record includes a description of one or more changes to be made to a content item associated with the work unit record, the one or more changes including the one or more recommended revision instructions selected from the set of recommended revision instructions (Gauger [0249-0255] describe, in response to requesting a change, the interface follows a regimented and automated work flow approval process where a create/edit change request interface allows for reference documents and requested documents to be attached as well as describing the requested change, i.e. recommended revision instructions, Fig.37-38 illustrate presenting information or instructions relating to the change such as attached reference documents or the change request description).
Gauger is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 6 Aleong further teaches:
wherein updating the work unit record to specify the rejected state causes a status of a second work unit record for a second unit of work to be changed (Aleong in at least Fig. 25-26 and [0084-0091] describes that when a status is indicated as denied, the item will step back in the workflow, then it will require further steps for completion).
Aleong does not explicitly recite the state being changed from complete to incomplete however, Gauger further teaches:
wherein updating the work unit record to specify the rejected state causes a status of a second work unit record for a second unit of work to be changed from complete to incomplete (Gauger in at least [0143-0144, 0251-0254] describe work in progress as including a completion status as well as secondary states providing indications such as approved, rejected, approved with modifications, submitted for review, etc., when a change is requested the document being submitted for approval is locked, if the result of the workflow is negative, the originally approve document returns to “approved” and the submitted document changes to WIP Rejected, e.g. incomplete)
Gauger is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 7 Aleong further teaches:
wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to update the user interface to include indicia reflecting which user interface element from the set of user interface elements was selected (Aleong in at least Figs. 24-26 and 28 illustrate the ability of the system to update the user interface in Fig. 28 to include indicia reflecting the selections of user elements from the interfaces shown in Figs. 24-26, the status of the individual workflow steps is updated to reflect any inputs related to the analysis requests and approval status inputs).
As per Claim 8 Aleong further teaches:
wherein the user interface displays or provides access to an instance of a content item associated with the work unit record (Aleong in at least Figs. 13-15 and [0029, 0069-0070] describes the Key Milestone/Project Tracking screen of the Merger Integration Toolkit and illustrate the importation or access to information from files that may be uploaded or linked to the milestones or other workflow items, see also Figs. 11a-11b and [0025-0026, 0059, 0064] describing the document library and interface document access configuration).
As per Claim 9 Aleong further teaches:
wherein the content item is an image, a video, an audio file, a PDF, or a text document (Aleong in at least Figs. 13-15 and [0029, 0069-0070] describes the Key Milestone/Project Tracking screen of the Merger Integration Toolkit and illustrate the importation or access to information from files that can include spreadsheets, or other text documents that may be uploaded or linked to the milestones or other workflow items, see also Figs. 11a-11b and [0025-0026, 0059, 0064] describing the document library and interface document access configuration).
As per Claim 10 Aleong further teaches:
manage, by the server, environment state information maintaining the collaboration environment; and establish the network connection between the server and the remotely located client computing platform (Aleong in at least [0008, 0014] describe es the SharePoint server that provides server capabilities facilitating information sharing across networks through a collaboration environment, these tools are supported over the intranet, extranet and web applications across an enterprise within one integrated platform enabling collaboration and content management, Figs. 12-13 also illustrate a Microsoft Project Server as is further described in at least [0066-0070] where different status for the items is managed including assignment due dates, approvals, etc., [0081] describes the integration toolkit allowing for multiple server configuration scenarios, the program milestone component is configured to interface with the collaboration environment as is described in the ABSTRACT, Figs. 1-28 illustrate user interfaces to present information to any user accessing work in the collaboration environment).
As per Claims 11-20 the limitations are substantially similar to those set forth in Claims 1-10 and are therefore rejected based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-10 above.
Subject Matter Eligibility
The claims set forth a combination of additional elements that interact and/or are interacted with in a specific manner to manage, establish connection, communicate, and update records in a server in response to specific selections through interactions with specifically recited interactive interface elements and specify values related to parameter and approval states, therefore providing a specific implementation that is considered sufficient to integrate the invention into a practical application.
Conclusion
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 STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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 on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
