DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final, First Office Action on the Merits in response to communications filed June 2, 2025. Currently, claims 1–12 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 7 recite a “set of forms to deploy through a task” in the element for “giving an administrator or approved personnel an ability”. However, claims 1 and 7 previously recite “a task” in the element for “setting up processes within a task”. As a result, the scope of claims 1 and 7 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitation of “a task” to reference the first recitation or intends to introduce a second, different task. For purposes of examination, claims 1 and 7 are interpreted as reciting “a “set of forms to deploy through [[a]] the task” in the element for “giving an administrator or approved personnel an ability”.
Claims 1 and 7 further recite “the security for personnel” in the final element of the claims. However, claims 1 and 7 previously recite “setting security for personnel” and “the personnel” in the element for “giving an administrator or approved personnel an ability”. As a result, the scope of claims 1 and 7 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of “personnel” in the final element of the claims to reference the earlier recitations or intends to introduce a second, different personnel. For purposes of examination, claims 1 and 7 are interpreted as reciting “the security for the personnel” in the final element of the claims.
In view of the above, claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2–6 and 8–12, which depend from claims 1 and 7, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 2–6 and 8–12 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 9 similarly recite “the security for personnel” in line 4. As noted above, however, claims 1 and 7 previously recite “the personnel”. As a result, the scope of claims 3 and 9 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of “personnel” in claims 3 and 9 to reference the recitations in claims 1 and 7 or intends to introduce a second, different personnel. For purposes of examination, claims 3 and 9 are interpreted as reciting “the security for the personnel”.
Claims 3 and 9 further recite “the available data” and “the API data” in lines 6 and 7, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For purposes of examination, claims 3 and 9 are interpreted as reciting “[[the]] available data” and “[[the]] API data”
Claims 4 and 10 recite “tasks” in line 2. However, claims 1 and 7, from which claims 4 and 10 depend, previously recite “tasks” in the element for “creating projects and tasks”. As a result, the scope of claims 4 and 10 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitations of claims 4 and 10 to reference the recitations of claims 1 and 7 or intends to introduce second, different tasks. For purposes of examination, claims 4 and 10 are interpreted as reciting “the tasks”.
Claims 5 and 11 recite “the actions” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For purposes of examination, claims 5 and 11 are interpreted as reciting “[[the]] actions”.
In view of the above, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant thoroughly review the claims for compliance with the requirements set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–12 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites “creating projects and tasks, setting up processes within a task, inviting and disabling personnel accounts, setting security for personnel, giving access rights and privileges to individual accounts”; “whereby the projects, child projects, and the tasks are set as a tree structure”; “whereby processes within the tasks are simplified by giving an administrator or approved personnel an ability to create a single or set of forms to deploy through a task to the personnel to facilitate individualized procedures and processes”; and “whereby the security is set individually or by role and wherein by setting a role-based security the [function] applies a global set of rules over roles where read/write, edit and viewing capabilities are set.”
The elements above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. Specifically, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements recite functions associated with managing projects, tasks, and employees according to standardized forms and role-based access rules. Further, the elements recite mental processes because the elements embody observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 7 includes substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 7 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–6 and 8–12 further describe the functions associated with managing projects, tasks, and employees according to standardized forms and role-based access rules. As a result, claims 2–6 and 8–12 similarly recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claim 1 include a user interface, a processor, a memory device, a program, and functionality for accessing an API library. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer components are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and the functionality for accessing an API library does no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or is an insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claim 7 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1, and claim 7 does not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 7 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
Similarly, claims 5–6 and 11–12 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to independent claims 1 and 7. As a result, claims 5–6 and 11–12 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
Claims 2–4 and 8–10 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include functionality to access and download information (claims 2 and 8), functionality to place the available data fields into a column (claims 3 and 9), and wherein all data exchange is retained (claims 4 and 10). When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because functionality to access and download data, place data into a column, and retain data do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or are insignificant extrasolution activities to the judicial exception. As a result, claims 2–4 and 8–10 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a user interface, a processor, a memory device, a program, and functionality to access an API library. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer components are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea and the functionality for accessing an API library does no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computing function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or retrieving information in memory). Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claim 7 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1, and claim 7 does not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 7 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Similarly, claims 5–6 and 11–12 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to independent claims 1 and 7. As a result, claims 5–6 and 11–12 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
As noted above, claims 2–4 and 8–10 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include functionality to access and download information (claims 2 and 8), functionality to place the available data fields into a column (claims 3 and 9), and wherein all data exchange is retained (claims 4 and 10). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because functionality to access and download data, place data into a column, and retain data do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or describe well-understood, routine, and conventional computing functions in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or retrieving information in memory; electronic recordkeeping; and storing information in memory). Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 2–4 and 8–10 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1–2, 4–8, and 10–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culver et al. (U.S. 2012/0110087) in view of Aiuto et al. (U.S. 8,893,077).
Claims 1 and 7: Culver discloses a communications matrix network comprising:
a user interface (See FIG. 15A–15H and paragraphs 43–44);
a processor connected to the user interface and further connected to a memory device on which is stored a program, wherein the processor executes the program (See FIG. 15A–15H and paragraphs 39 and 43–44):
creating projects and tasks (See paragraphs 53-58, wherein projects are created),
setting up processes within a task (See paragraphs 54, 58, and 220–223, wherein project timelines, tasks, and sub-tasks are created),
inviting and disabling personnel accounts (See paragraph 114, wherein profiles are crated or deleted),
setting security for personnel (See paragraphs 421–424, wherein permissions are created), and
giving access rights and privileges to individual accounts (See paragraphs 421–424, wherein permissions are created individually or with respect to role);
wherein the user interface connection to the processor executes instructions whereby the projects, child projects and the tasks are set as a tree structure for intuitive system building (See paragraphs 657–658 and 754–755, wherein projects may be viewed in a tree-branch format);
wherein said processor further executing instructions whereby processes within the tasks are also simplified by giving an administrator or approved personnel an ability through the user interface to create a single or set of forms to deploy through a task to the personnel to facilitate individualized procedures and processes (See paragraphs 244-245 and 335-337, wherein projects are created by identifying or creating templates for a given project; see also paragraph 362, wherein templates are created);
wherein the processor further executing instructions whereby the security for personnel is set individually or by role and wherein by setting a role-based security the user interface applies a global set of rules over roles where read/write, edit and viewing capabilities are set (See paragraphs 421–422, wherein permissions are set individually or applied globally with respect to roles). Although Culver discloses utilizing an API (see paragraphs 909-911), Culver does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Aiuto discloses accessing a generic API library for integrating software (See col. 4, l. 60–col. 5, l. 11, wherein an interface is configured to access an API directory).
Culver discloses a system directed to collaborative project management that employs an API. Aiuto discloses a system directed to generating API Libraries using an API directory. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the API library access functions disclosed by Aiuto into the collaborative system of Culver because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one or ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Further, although Aiuto does not directly pertain to the field of project management, a reference in a field different from that of applicant's endeavor may be reasonably pertinent if it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his or her invention as a whole (MPEP 2141.01). The prior art of record provides common essential elements, even though the prior art applied is not based in project management but rather based in accessing API functions; furthermore, it solves the pertinent problem.
Claims 2 and 8.: Culver does not expressly disclose the elements of claim 2.
Aiuto discloses wherein administrators access the generic API library and download a known API to use for integration with another known product (See col. 4, l. 60–col. 5, l. 11, wherein an interface is configured to access an API directory and download the library source; see also col. 11, ll. 32-67).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the API library access and download functions disclosed by Aiuto into the collaborative system of Culver for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 4 and 10: Culver discloses the communications matrix network of claim 1 wherein all data exchange is retained within tasks (See paragraphs 129–130 and 133, wherein all communications are tagged for storage; see also paragraph 136).
Claims 5 and 11: Culver discloses the communications matrix network of claim 1 wherein one action may trigger another action within the task (See paragraphs 220–221, wherein event dependencies trigger subsequent events) and where the actions are listed in sequence as a breadcrumb view to show a user where the process is up to (See paragraphs 739 and 754–755, wherein events are displayed using a tree-branch formatting and status grouping strategies; see also paragraphs 207, 684–685, and 814).
Claims 6 and 12: Culver discloses the communications matrix network of claim 1 wherein limits are set for each action thereby allowing both automated data exchanges and manual human actions to be a part of a single workflow within one task (See paragraphs 220–221, wherein human action and automated messaging events are included within an event workflow).
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culver et al. (U.S. 2012/0110087) in view of Aiuto et al. (U.S. 8,893,077), and in further view of Johnson (U.S. 2009/0031006).
Claims 3 and 9: As disclosed above, Culver and Aiuto disclose the elements of claims 1–2. Culver does not, however, expressly disclose the elements of claim 3.
Aiuto discloses wherein the generic API library further comprises a stored set of all API structures and known integrations accessible for subsequent integrations through the user interface (See col. 4, l. 60–col. 5, l. 11 and col. 11, ll. 32–67, wherein the API data store includes all necessary libraries and reference documentation) and wherein the user interface allows a person with the security for personnel to access the generic API library and choose an API, raw data sensor actions or, mapped database schema from a list of available products (See col. 4, l. 60–col. 5, l. 11 and col. 11, ll. 32–67, in view of col. 11, ll. 24–27, wherein an authenticated user accesses and selects an API).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the API library access and download functions disclosed by Aiuto into the collaborative system of Culver for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Culver and Aiuto do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Johnson discloses functionality that places the available data fields into a column designated as an origin system and wherein the data fields are listed and placed in separate text fields (See FIG. 9D and paragraphs 417 and 450, wherein fields are columnized and placed into text fields).
As noted above, Culver discloses a system directed to collaborative project management that employs an API, and Aiuto discloses a system directed to generating API Libraries using an API directory. Johnson discloses a system directed to managing information in a web service. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the columnization functions disclosed by Johnson into the data management systems of Culver and Aiuto because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one or ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Further, although Johnson does not directly pertain to the field of project management, a reference in a field different from that of applicant's endeavor may be reasonably pertinent if it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his or her invention as a whole (MPEP 2141.01). The prior art of record provides common essential elements, even though the prior art applied is not based in project management but rather based in data management functions; furthermore, it solves the pertinent problem.
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 1–12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,321,874. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,321,874 anticipate each element of pending claims 1–12.
Pending Claims
U.S. 12,321,874
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
4
8
4
9
4
10
4
11
4
12
4
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8am-5pm, 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, 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights