Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant's filing of 07/29/2026.
The effective filing date of the present application is 04/14/2021.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments and remarks of 07/29/2026 have been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 11 have overcome a previous rejection for these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); therefore, the previous rejection of all claims under this section as being indefinite is withdrawn.
Applicant has not filed a terminal disclaimer within this reply regarding a previously noted nonstatutory double patenting rejection; a new nonstatutory double patenting claim appears within this Office Action as directed to currently amended claims.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
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.
At Step 1 of analysis, the instant claims are directed towards a system and a method. Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One of analysis, the claims set forth a ‘social activity’ of ‘interacting with others’ as well as ‘following rules or instructions’ of interacting with units of ‘work and projects dependent on roles’. Thus, the claims describe ‘managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people’; which is within the ‘certain methods of organizing human’ activity grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11, which is illustrative of claim 1, contains those elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A method to facilitate interaction with a collaboration environment based on assignment of roles, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a server, role information specifying roles of a user within a collaboration environment, the collaboration environment being accessible via a remotely located client computing platform communicating with the server over one or more network connections, the collaboration environment being maintained by environment state information, the environment state information including a project record for a project and a work unit record for a unit of work, the project being associated with the unit of work and one or more other units of work, the role information specifying the user has a first role within the unit of work and concurrently has a second role within the project; and
effectuating communication of information defining a user interface of the collaboration environment to the remotely located client computing platform over the one or more network connections to cause the remotely located client computing platform to present the user interface, the user interface being configured so that interaction with the work unit record and the project record through the user interface is made dependent on the roles of the user, such that interaction with the work unit record through the user interface is based on the first role within the unit of work, and interaction with the project record through the user interface is based on the second role within the project.
At Step 2A, Prong Two of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception categorized as certain methods of organizing human activity) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more." Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to "apply it," is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1 and 11 recite only the following additional elements:
the system comprising: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions;
a server;
a remotely located client computing platform communicating with the server over one or more network connections;
information defining a user interface.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described the system generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0017-0018, 0074, 0076-0078], and Figure 1, as filed. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generically recited devices to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above, the additional elements of: (the system comprising: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions; a server; a remotely located client computing platform communicating with the server over one or more network connections; a user interface), are recited at a high level of generality and are instructions to apply the exception on a computer. Therefore, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2 - 8 and 12 - 20 contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 11. Recitations to multiple roles, statuses, communicating with other users, meeting requests, and editing the projects, are further recitations to the method for interacting with others as well as following rules or instructions of interacting with units of work and projects dependent on roles. Therefore, they are directed to the abstract idea identified. These recitations further rely on the generically recited devices to perform the method steps, including instructions to enable an interface. The claims are directed to the abstract idea per MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 9 and 10 contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. These claims rely on the generically recited devices to perform the method steps. A recitation to preferences of the user is a further recitation to the method for interacting with others. The claims are directed to the abstract idea per MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, for the reasons cited above, claims 1 - 20 are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without reciting significantly more.
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, 4, 6-9, 11, 14, and 16-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,676,107.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims describe interactions within a collaboration environment based on roles; similarly described within U.S. Patent No. 11,676,107. The system and method described in the instant claims 1 and 11, perform indistinguishable steps for users to collaborate over a network and for completing units of work based on roles within projects.
The instant claim limitations are duplicative of the claimed recitations within claims 1, 4, 6 - 9, 11, 14, and 16 - 19 of reference U.S. Patent No. 11,676,107; they simply recite similar elements to the patent claims while not reciting other elements. In other words, the reference patent claims anticipate the instant claims under examination because every limitation in the instant claims are recited in the reference (conflicting) patent. The instant claims merely recite roles of the first user while the referenced patent recites users. The recitation of users (plural) would necessarily anticipate a first user. Similarly, the instant claims recite a first unit of work while the referenced patent recites work unit records; again, the plurality of records necessarily needing a first.
The instant dependent claims 2 - 10 and 12 - 20, also contain further recitations described within the dependent claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,676,107. Therefore, they too are also not patentably distinct from each other because the elements described are anticipated.
The Examiner has repeated a claim mapping of amended claims 1 and 11 of the instant application below. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are not included here for brevity, as they are an exact copy of the claim mapping within the Office Action filed 05/04/2026.
Application 19/062,895
Patent 11,676,107
(Application 17/230,151)
Claim 1
Claim 1
A system configured to facilitate interaction with a collaboration environment based on assignment of roles, the system comprising: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
obtain, by a server, role information specifying roles of a user within a collaboration environment, the collaboration environment being accessible via a remotely located client computing platform communicating with the server over one or more network connections, the collaboration environment being maintained by environment state information, the environment state information including a project record for a project and a work unit record for a unit of work, the project being associated with the unit of work and one or more other units of work, the role information specifying the user has a first role within the unit of work and concurrently has a second role within the project; and
effectuate communication of information defining a user interface of the collaboration environment to the remotely located client computing platform over the one or more network connections to cause the remotely located client computing platform to present the user interface, the user interface being configured so that interaction with the work unit record and the project record through the user interface is made dependent on the roles of the user, such that interaction with the work unit record through the user interface is dependent on the first role within the unit of work, and interaction with the project record through the user interface is dependent on the second role within the project.
A system configured to facilitate interaction with a collaboration environment based on assignment of project-level roles, the system comprising: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
manage, by a server, environment state information maintaining a collaboration environment, the collaboration environment being configured to facilitate interaction by users with the collaboration environment, wherein the users interact with the collaboration environment via remotely located client computing platforms communicating with the server over an Internet connection, the environment state information including work unit records and project records, the work unit records including values for work unit parameters associated with units of work managed, created, and/or assigned within the collaboration environment, the project records including values for project parameters associated with projects managed within the collaboration environment, an individual project being associated with an individual set of the units of work that support fulfilment of the individual project; obtain, by the server, role information specifying roles of the users within the units of work and the projects, the roles within the units of work conveying expected contribution of the users in completing and/or supporting the units of work and the roles within the projects conveying expected contribution of the users in completing and/or supporting the projects, wherein individual roles of individual users within the units of work are specified separately from the individual roles of the individual users within the projects, such that a first user has a first role within a first unit of work and concurrently has a second role within a first project, the first project being associated with the first unit of work and one or more other units of work; update, by the server, the environment state information based on the role information, such that the work unit parameters include a work unit role parameter characterizing the individual roles of the individual users with respect to individual units of work, and the project parameters include a project role parameter characterizing the individual roles of the individual users with respect to individual projects, such that a first value of the work unit role parameter in a first work unit record for the first unit of work specifies the first user as having the first role within the first unit of work, and a second value of the project role parameter in a first project record for the first project specifies the first user as concurrently having the second role within the first project; generate, by the server, information defining a user interface of the collaboration environment based on the environment state information; and
effectuate communication of the information defining the user interface of the collaboration environment to the remotely located client computing platforms over the Internet connection to cause the remotely located client computing platforms to present the user interface so that access, by the users, to the work unit records and the project records are dependent on the roles of the users within the units of work and the projects, wherein the access is made dependent on the roles by: enabling and/or disabling use of sets of features related to accessing the work unit records and the project records within the user interface based on the roles of the users within the units of work and the projects, such that use of a first set of features related to accessing the first work unit record is enabled for the first user by virtue of having the first role within the first unit of work, and use of a second set of features related to accessing the first project record is enabled for the first user by virtue of having the second role within the first project.
Claim 11
Claim 11
A method to facilitate interaction with a collaboration environment based on assignment of roles, the method comprising: obtaining, by a server, role information specifying roles of a user within a collaboration environment, the collaboration environment being accessible via a remotely located client computing platform communicating with the server over one or more network connections, the collaboration environment being maintained by environment state information, the environment state information including a project record for a project and a work unit record for a unit of work, the project being associated with the unit of work and one or more other units of work, the role information specifying the user has a first role within the unit of work and concurrently has a second role within the project; and
effectuating communication of information defining a user interface of the collaboration environment to the remotely located client computing platform over the one or more network connections to cause the remotely located client computing platform to present the user interface, the user interface being configured so that interaction with the work unit record and the project record through the user interface is made dependent on the roles of the user, such that interaction with the work unit record through the user interface is based on the first role within the unit of work, and interaction with the project record through the user interface is based on the second role within the project.
A method to facilitate interaction with a collaboration environment based on assignment of project-level roles, the method comprising: managing, by a server, environment state information maintaining a collaboration environment, the collaboration environment being configured to facilitate interaction by users with the collaboration environment, wherein the users interact with the collaboration environment via remotely located client computing platforms communicating with the server over an Internet connection, the environment state information including work unit records and project records, the work unit records including values for work unit parameters associated with units of work managed, created, and/or assigned within the collaboration environment, the project records including values for project parameters associated with projects managed within the collaboration environment, an individual project being associated with an individual set of the units of work that support fulfilment of the individual project; obtaining, by the server, role information specifying roles of the users within the units of work and the projects, the roles within the units of work conveying expected contribution of the users in completing and/or supporting the units of work and the roles within the projects conveying expected contribution of the users in completing and/or supporting the projects, wherein individual roles of individual users within the units of work are specified separately from the individual roles of the individual users within the projects, such that a first user has a first role within a first unit of work and concurrently has a second role within a first project, the first project being associated with the first unit of work and one or more other units of work; updating, by the server, the environment state information based on the role information, such that the work unit parameters include a work unit role parameter characterizing the individual roles of the individual users with respect to individual units of work, and the project parameters include a project role parameter characterizing the individual roles of the individual users with respect to individual projects, such that a first value of the work unit role parameter in a first work unit record for the first unit of work specifies the first user as having the first role within the first unit of work, and a second value of the project role parameter in a first project record for the first project specifies the first user as concurrently having the second role within the first project; generating, by the server, information defining a user interface of the collaboration environment based on the environment state information; and effectuating communication of the information defining the user interface of the collaboration environment to the remotely located client computing platforms over the Internet connection to cause the remotely located client computing platforms to present the user interface so that access, by the users, to the work unit records and the project records are dependent on roles of the users within the units of work and the projects, wherein the access is made dependent on the roles by: enabling and/or disabling use of sets of features related to accessing the work unit records and the project records within the user interface based on the roles of the users within the units of work and the projects, including enabling use of a first set of features related to accessing the first work unit record for the first user by virtue of having the first role within the first unit of work, and enabling use of a second set of features related to accessing the first project record for the first user by virtue of having the second role within the first project
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,638.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims describe interactions within a collaboration environment based on roles; similarly described within U.S. Patent No. 12,299,638. The method and system described in the instant claims 1 and 11, perform indistinguishable steps for users to collaborate over a network and for completing units of work based on roles within projects.
The instant claim limitations are duplicative of the claimed recitations within claims 1 and 3-20 of reference U.S. Patent No. 12,299,638; they simply recite similar elements to the patent claims while not reciting other elements. In other words, the reference patent claims anticipate the instant claims under examination because every limitation in the instant claims are recited in the reference (conflicting) patent. The instant claims merely recite roles of the first user while the referenced patent recites users. The recitation of users (plural) would necessarily anticipate a first user. Similarly, the instant claims recite a first unit of work while the referenced patent recites work unit records; again, the plurality of records necessarily needing a first.
The instant dependent claims 2 - 10 and 12 - 20, also contain further recitations described within the dependent claims of U.S. Patent No. 18,308,959. Therefore, they too are also not patentably distinct from each other because the elements described are anticipated.
The Examiner has repeated a claim mapping of amended claims 1 and 11 of the instant application below. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are not included here for brevity, as they are an exact copy of the claim mapping within the Office Action filed 05/04/2026.
Application 19/062,895
Patent 12,299,638
(Application 18/308,959)
Claim 1
Claim 1
A system configured to facilitate interaction with a collaboration environment based on assignment of roles, the system comprising: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
obtain, by a server, role information specifying roles of a user within a collaboration environment, the collaboration environment being accessible via a remotely located client computing platform communicating with the server over one or more network connections, the collaboration environment being maintained by environment state information, the environment state information including a project record for a project and a work unit record for a unit of work, the project being associated with the unit of work and one or more other units of work, the role information specifying the user has a first role within the unit of work and concurrently has a second role within the project; and
effectuate communication of information defining a user interface of the collaboration environment to the remotely located client computing platform over the one or more network connections to cause the remotely located client computing platform to present the user interface, the user interface being configured so that interaction with the work unit record and the project record through the user interface is made dependent on the roles of the user, such that interaction with the work unit record through the user interface is dependent on the first role within the unit of work, and interaction with the project record through the user interface is dependent on the second role within the project.
A system configured to facilitate interaction with a collaboration environment based on assignment of roles, the system comprising: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
manage, by a server, environment state information maintaining a collaboration environment, the collaboration environment being configured to facilitate interaction by a first user with the collaboration environment, wherein the first user interacts with the collaboration environment via a first remotely located client computing platform communicating with the server over one or more Internet connections, the environment state information including a first project record for a first project, the first project being associated with a first unit of work and one or more other units of work;
obtain, by the server, role information specifying roles of the first user, the role information specifying the first user has a first role within the first unit of work and concurrently has a second role within the first project; generate, by the server, information defining a user interface of the collaboration environment; and
effectuate communication of the information defining the user interface of the collaboration environment to the first remotely located client computing platform over the one or more Internet connections to cause the first remotely located client computing platform to present the user interface so that the first user's ability to interact with a work unit record of the first unit of work and the first project record of the first project is made dependent on the roles of the first user, such that use of a first set of features related to interacting with the first work unit record is enabled for the first user by virtue of having the first role within the first unit of work, and use of a second set of features related to interacting with the first project record is enabled for the first user by virtue of having the second role within the first project.
Claim 11
Claim 11
A method to facilitate interaction with a collaboration environment based on assignment of roles, the method comprising: obtaining, by a server, role information specifying roles of a user within a collaboration environment, the collaboration environment being accessible via a remotely located client computing platform communicating with the server over one or more network connections, the collaboration environment being maintained by environment state information, the environment state information including a project record for a project and a work unit record for a unit of work, the project being associated with the unit of work and one or more other units of work, the role information specifying the user has a first role within the unit of work and concurrently has a second role within the project; and
effectuating communication of information defining a user interface of the collaboration environment to the remotely located client computing platform over the one or more network connections to cause the remotely located client computing platform to present the user interface, the user interface being configured so that interaction with the work unit record and the project record through the user interface is made dependent on the roles of the user, such that interaction with the work unit record through the user interface is based on the first role within the unit of work, and interaction with the project record through the user interface is based on the second role within the project.
A method to facilitate interaction with a collaboration environment based on assignment of project-level roles, the method comprising: managing, by a server, environment state information maintaining a collaboration environment, the collaboration environment being configured to facilitate interaction by a first user with the collaboration environment, wherein the first user interacts with the collaboration environment via a first remotely located client computing platform communicating with the server over one or more Internet connections, the environment state information including a first project record for a first project, the first project being associated with a first unit of work and one or more other units of work; obtaining, by the server, role information specifying roles of the first user, the role information specifying the first user has a first role within the first unit of work and concurrently has a second role within the first project;
generating, by the server, information defining a user interface of the collaboration environment; and
effectuating communication of the information defining the user interface of the collaboration environment to the first remotely located client computing platform over the one or more Internet connections to cause the first remotely located client computing platform to present the user interface so that the first user's ability to interact with a work unit record of the first unit of work and the first project record of the first project is made dependent on the roles of the first user, including enabling use of a first set of features related to interacting with the first work unit record for the first user by virtue of having the first role within the first unit of work, and enabling use of a second set of features related to interacting with the first project record for the first user by virtue of having the second role within the first project.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments discuss rejection of prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 9. Applicant’s remarks include brief restatements of the prior rejection, on pages 10 – 11 and contends, at point 2, that the previous rejection fails under Prong One because the Office Action fails to show the claims recite an abstract idea. See page 11. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
First, Applicant argues several deficiencies, including, a) identification of multiple different abstract ideas, and/or b) the Office Action does not establish the claims are an abstract idea. Applicant further discusses these points of contention at:
The Identification of Multiple Abstract Ideas is Procedurally Deficient for Lack of Clarity and Specificity.
This is not persuasive. Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? A claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea) when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. After considerable evaluation, the Examiner maintains that the original and amended claims describe a ‘social activity’ of ‘interacting’ with others as well as ‘following rules or instructions’ of interacting with units of ‘work and projects dependent on roles. Because the use of the interface to interact is made dependent on the roles of users, this sets forth activities to manage personal behavior of people. Thus, the claims describe “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”; which is within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas defined at 2106.04(a). Applicant must realize “interaction with a collaboration environment based on assignment of roles” is squarely directed at interactions between people (those users who have a first or second role) to collaborate. See Specification [0002]: “A collaboration environment may comprise an environment in which individual users and/or a virtual team of users does its work and may enable users to work in a more organized and efficient manner.” Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the conclusion that the amended claims set forth an abstract idea: ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’. Applicant’s argument that the identification of these certain methods of organizing human activity, along with the detailed identification of those elements that define this abstract idea, (highlighted earlier), is deficient for lack of clarity and specificity is not persuasive.
Applicant next argues, on page 14,
The Office Action Does Not Establish The Concepts Or The Lines Of Claim Prose Are Abstract Ideas.
This is not persuasive. Similar to the above reasoning, the Examiner maintains the amended claims describe ‘social activity’ of ‘interacting’ with others as well as ‘following rules or instructions’ of interacting with units of ‘work and projects dependent on roles’. Because the use of the interface to interact is made dependent on the roles of users, this sets forth activities to manage personal behavior of people. Thus, the claims describe “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”; which is within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ enumerated grouping of abstract ideas defined at 2106.04(a). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the conclusion that the amended claims set forth an abstract idea: ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’. Applicant’s argument that the rejection does not establish the claims recite an abstract idea is not persuasive.
Applicant next argues improper analysis at Step 2A, Prong Two, and contends, “The Rejection Fails Under Prong Two Because The Office Action Fails To Properly Identify, Let Alone Analyze, "Additional Elements." See page 16. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Evaluation at Prong Two requires the use of the considerations (e.g. improving technology, effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis, implementing with a particular machine, etc.) identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, to ensure that the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application that will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. These considerations are set forth in the MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), and MPEP 2106.05(e) through (h).
As comprehensively detailed above, the only additional elements include: (the system comprising: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions; a server; a remotely located client computing platform communicating with the server over one or more network connections; a user interface). These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more." Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to "apply it," is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology. Applicant has described the system generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0017-0018, 0074, 0076-0078], and Figure 1, as filed. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's next remarks are directed to a right to traverse the grounds of rejection based on Step 2B analysis. See page 18. Applicant's arguments and remarks of 07/29/2026 have been entered.
Applicant next adds comments regarding the claims describe a concept which is not abstract. See page 18. Applicant adds that the asserted concept is a specific, non-overgeneralized, and non-abstract concept. See page 19. Finally, Applicant adds the asserted concept is a specific technological implementation. This is not persuasive. “Collaboration environments, sometimes referred to as work management platforms, may enable users to assign projects, tasks, or other assignments to assignees (e.g., other users) to complete.” This sounds like any worldwide business having users with roles, working collaboratively (usually two or more people or groups working together to achieve a shared goal or complete a task), utilizing projects and records. “Projects are a way to organize groups of tasks.” Further, projects, records, and work units are “information”. Specification [0019]. Applicant’s use of a system (comprising: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions) to receive, store, or transmit data (information), as well as simply adding a general-purpose computer to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
