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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-8 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 11/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 5-6. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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- 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-8 are directed to task progress management.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus for task progress management, Claim 7 recites a method for task progress management and Claim 8 recites an article of manufacture for task progress management, which include managing progress of system development based on progress that corresponds to each task in the system development and is input by a person in charge of each task; determining whether there is a risk of occurrence of a delay in an ongoing task, which is a task in progress in the system development, based on the number of times a target person in charge, who is a person in charge of the ongoing task, has input progress corresponding to the ongoing task.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea grouping of “Mental Processes” – evaluation. The recitation of “progress management device”, “processing circuitry”, “computer”, and “computer readable medium”, provide nothing in the claim elements to preclude the step from being “Mental Processes”- evaluation. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims primarily recite the additional element of using computer components to perform each step. The progress management device”, “processing circuitry”, “computer”, and “computer readable medium” is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fail to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. In particular, there is a lack of improvement to a computer or technical field in task management analysis.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “progress management device”, “processing circuitry”, “computer”, and “computer readable medium” is insufficient to amount to significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With regards to receiving data and step 2B, it is M2106.05(d)- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) and Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Examiner concludes that the additional elements in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea based on findings that each element merely performs the same function(s) in combination as each element performs separately. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Dependent Claims 2-6 recite determines that there is a risk of occurrence of a delay in the ongoing task when a rate of a cumulative number of days on which the target person in charge has input progress corresponding to the ongoing task in relation to a cumulative number of days on which the target person in charge has executed the ongoing task is less than or equal to a delay standard rate; determines whether there is a risk of occurrence of a delay in the ongoing task based on a comparison between a tendency of inputs of progress by the target person in charge in a task executed and completed previously by the target person in charge in the system development and a tendency of inputs of progress by the target person in charge in the ongoing task; determines whether there is a risk of occurrence of a delay in the ongoing task based on a comparison between a tendency of inputs of progress by the target person in charge in a task executed and completed previously by the target person in charge in the system development and a tendency of inputs of progress by the target person in charge in the ongoing task; wherein the tendency of inputs is a frequency of inputs; and further narrowing the abstract idea. These recited limitations in the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exceptions in Claims 1, 7 and 8. Regarding Claims, 2-4, and the additional elements of “processing circuitry” it is M2106.05(d)- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
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 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 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuichi et al., US Publication No. 20260004219A1, [hereinafter Furuichi], in view of Christodoulou et al., US Publication No. 20080270213A1, [hereinafter Christodoulou].
Regarding Claim 1,
Furuichi teaches
A progress management device to manage progress of system development based on progress that corresponds to each task in the system development and is input by a person in charge of each task, the progress management device comprising processing circuitry to determine whether there is a risk of occurrence of a delay in an ongoing task, which is a task in progress in the system development, based on … a target person in charge, who is a person in charge of the ongoing task, has input progress corresponding to the ongoing task. (Furuichi Par. 9-10; Par. 82-“ The progress prediction unit 24 can calculate a corrected SPI value (one example of the corrected evaluation index) based on the resources changed by the resource calculation unit 25. Further, the progress prediction unit 24 can generate corrected prediction data of the progress performance by re-predicting the data of the progress performance after the intermediate point based on the corrected SPI value. Thereby, as shown in FIG. 6 (see the thick solid line), the data of the progress performance after the correction shifts from the data of the progress performance predicted in the above-described FIG. 5 (see the one-dot chain line) such that the work period (the period until the completion date) is shortened. As a result, by changing (additionally inputting) the resources at the intermediate point, the manager of the project can complete the step by the preset reference completion date of the project. Also, the resource calculation unit 25 may be configured to calculate, together with the additional resources that are needed to complete the step by the reference completion date of the project, the additional cost that is necessary to input the additional resources. In this case, the user can choose whether to correct the project progress by inputting the additional resources by comparing and considering the cost required for the additional resources and the risk caused by the delay in the completion date of the project.”)
Furuichi teaches task analysis and the feature is expounded upon by Christodoulou:
whether there is a risk of occurrence of a delay … based on the number of times a target person in charge,… has input progress (Christodoulou Par. 75- The user can change the data representing the activities and states of the system, in the light of a change in processes or the outcomes of events as indicated schematically 22. Furthermore, as FIG. 11 indicates, the software that implements the proposed method for risk indication can receive input about any changes in processes and/or outcomes and/or schedules and/or resource availability through other software that monitors the current status of processes/activities and/or resources. The computer 10 then automatically recalculates the delay indicator, the activity failure indicator, the human resource shortage indicator and the infrastructure shortage indicator based on these changes, and outputs the updated risk indicators.”)
Furuichi and Christodoulou are directed to task analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Furuichi, as taught by Christodoulou, by utilizing additional analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Furuichi with the motivation of help the decision maker to identify any reasons why a change may fail, which is essential in deciding what action to take in order to reduce the risk (Christodoulou Par. 31).
Regarding Claim 7,
Furuichi teaches
A progress management method that is executed by a progress management device, which is a computer, to manage progress of system development based on progress that corresponds to each task in the system development and is input by a person in charge of each task, the progress management method comprising determining whether there is a risk of occurrence of a delay in an ongoing task, which is a task in progress in the system development, based on …who is a person in charge of the ongoing task, has input progress corresponding to the ongoing task, by the progress management device.. (Furuichi Par. 9-10; Par. 38; Par. 82-“ The progress prediction unit 24 can calculate a corrected SPI value (one example of the corrected evaluation index) based on the resources changed by the resource calculation unit 25. Further, the progress prediction unit 24 can generate corrected prediction data of the progress performance by re-predicting the data of the progress performance after the intermediate point based on the corrected SPI value. Thereby, as shown in FIG. 6 (see the thick solid line), the data of the progress performance after the correction shifts from the data of the progress performance predicted in the above-described FIG. 5 (see the one-dot chain line) such that the work period (the period until the completion date) is shortened. As a result, by changing (additionally inputting) the resources at the intermediate point, the manager of the project can complete the step by the preset reference completion date of the project. Also, the resource calculation unit 25 may be configured to calculate, together with the additional resources that are needed to complete the step by the reference completion date of the project, the additional cost that is necessary to input the additional resources. In this case, the user can choose whether to correct the project progress by inputting the additional resources by comparing and considering the cost required for the additional resources and the risk caused by the delay in the completion date of the project.”)
Furuichi teaches task analysis and the feature is expounded upon by Christodoulou:
whether there is a risk of occurrence of a delay … based on the number of times a target person in charge,… has input progress (Christodoulou Par. 75- The user can change the data representing the activities and states of the system, in the light of a change in processes or the outcomes of events as indicated schematically 22. Furthermore, as FIG. 11 indicates, the software that implements the proposed method for risk indication can receive input about any changes in processes and/or outcomes and/or schedules and/or resource availability through other software that monitors the current status of processes/activities and/or resources. The computer 10 then automatically recalculates the delay indicator, the activity failure indicator, the human resource shortage indicator and the infrastructure shortage indicator based on these changes, and outputs the updated risk indicators.”)
Furuichi and Christodoulou are directed to task analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Furuichi, as taught by Christodoulou, by utilizing additional analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Furuichi with the motivation of help the decision maker to identify any reasons why a change may fail, which is essential in deciding what action to take in order to reduce the risk (Christodoulou Par. 31).
Regarding Claim 8,
Furuichi teaches
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a progress management program that is executed by a progress management device, which is a computer, to manage progress of system development based on progress that corresponds to each task in the system development and is input by a person in charge of each task, the progress management program causing the progress management device to execute a delay risk calculation process of determining whether there is a risk of occurrence of a delay in an ongoing task, which is a task in progress in the system development, based on … a target person in charge, who is a person in charge of the ongoing task, has input progress corresponding to the ongoing task. (Furuichi Par. 9-10; Par. 38; Par. 58; Par. 82-“ The progress prediction unit 24 can calculate a corrected SPI value (one example of the corrected evaluation index) based on the resources changed by the resource calculation unit 25. Further, the progress prediction unit 24 can generate corrected prediction data of the progress performance by re-predicting the data of the progress performance after the intermediate point based on the corrected SPI value. Thereby, as shown in FIG. 6 (see the thick solid line), the data of the progress performance after the correction shifts from the data of the progress performance predicted in the above-described FIG. 5 (see the one-dot chain line) such that the work period (the period until the completion date) is shortened. As a result, by changing (additionally inputting) the resources at the intermediate point, the manager of the project can complete the step by the preset reference completion date of the project. Also, the resource calculation unit 25 may be configured to calculate, together with the additional resources that are needed to complete the step by the reference completion date of the project, the additional cost that is necessary to input the additional resources. In this case, the user can choose whether to correct the project progress by inputting the additional resources by comparing and considering the cost required for the additional resources and the risk caused by the delay in the completion date of the project.”)
Furuichi teaches task analysis and the feature is expounded upon by Christodoulou:
whether there is a risk of occurrence of a delay … based on the number of times a target person in charge,… has input progress (Christodoulou Par. 75- The user can change the data representing the activities and states of the system, in the light of a change in processes or the outcomes of events as indicated schematically 22. Furthermore, as FIG. 11 indicates, the software that implements the proposed method for risk indication can receive input about any changes in processes and/or outcomes and/or schedules and/or resource availability through other software that monitors the current status of processes/activities and/or resources. The computer 10 then automatically recalculates the delay indicator, the activity failure indicator, the human resource shortage indicator and the infrastructure shortage indicator based on these changes, and outputs the updated risk indicators.”)
Furuichi and Christodoulou are directed to task analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Furuichi, as taught by Christodoulou, by utilizing additional analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Furuichi with the motivation of help the decision maker to identify any reasons why a change may fail, which is essential in deciding what action to take in order to reduce the risk (Christodoulou Par. 31).
Claims 2 - 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuichi et al., US Publication No. 20260004219A1, [hereinafter Furuichi], in view of Christodoulou et al., US Publication No. 20080270213A1, [hereinafter Christodoulou], and in further view of Cantor et al., US Publication No. 20140222497A1, [hereinafter Cantor].
Regarding Claim 2, Furuichi in view of Christodoulou teach The progress management device according to claim 1,…
Furuichi in view of Christodoulou teach task progress analysis and the feature is expounded upon by Cantor:
wherein the processing circuitry determines that there is a risk of occurrence of a delay in the ongoing task when a rate of a cumulative number of days on which the target person in charge has input progress corresponding to the ongoing task in relation to a cumulative number of days on which the target person in charge has executed the ongoing task is less than or equal to a delay standard rate (Cantor Par. 90- Consider a training set having 10 completed tasks: 5 enhancement tasks that each took 2 days and 5 defect tasks that each took 1 day. From this training set of already-completed tasks, the machine learner might build a model that contextualizes its prediction depending on the type of task it is given. In this case, the model may simply encode that enhancements usually take 2 days and defects 1 day. This model can now be applied to new tasks: if the new task is an enhancement, the model predicts 2 days, if it is a defect the prediction is 1 day. Clearly, this is an over-simplification: a real training set will not be as simple and bipolar, where different types of tasks always take exactly the same amount of time. To handle a more diverse (and realistic) training set, the machine learner may need to use a variety of attributes of the task (such as owner, task type, description, priority) in order to discriminate the elements in the training set to determine which ones are most similar to a new piece of work.; Par. 154- This pattern could apply to an individual item, or it might only be recognized if it happens to, e.g., three or more items. Parameters in general may have configurable parameters for factors like scope, threshold levels, and other factors. Different patterns may be associated with different kinds of detailed information, e.g., number of times rescheduled, or amount of time past due, or degree of increased risk, or amount of scope creep, etc.”)
Furuichi, Christodoulou and Cantor are directed to task analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Furuichi in view of Christodoulou, as taught by Cantor, by utilizing additional analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Furuichi in view of Christodoulou with the motivation of improving the quality of the process (Cantor Par. 111).
. Regarding Claim 3 and Claim 4, Furuichi in view of Christodoulou teach The progress management device according to claim 1,… and The progress management device according to claim 2,…
Furuichi in view of Christodoulou teach task progress analysis and the feature is expounded upon by Cantor:
wherein the processing circuitry determines whether there is a risk of occurrence of a delay in the ongoing task based on a comparison between a tendency of inputs of progress by the target person in charge in a task executed and completed previously by the target person in charge in the system development and a tendency of inputs of progress by the target person in charge in the ongoing task (Cantor Par. 161- Further, a method may be provided for comparing the effects of a multitude of alternative next steps that a development team can take in order to progress a development project. The next steps may be actions to remediate a currently present issue or problem in the development project, or they may be potential actions to improve the productivity of the development team.; Par. 162; Par. 194”)
Furuichi, Christodoulou and Cantor are directed to task analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Furuichi in view of Christodoulou, as taught by Cantor, by utilizing additional analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Furuichi in view of Christodoulou with the motivation of improving the quality of the process (Cantor Par. 111).
. Regarding Claim 5 and Claim 6, Furuichi in view of Christodoulou teach The progress management device according to claim 3,… and The progress management device according to claim 4,…
Furuichi in view of Christodoulou teach task progress analysis and the feature is expounded upon by Cantor:
wherein the tendency of inputs is a frequency of inputs. (Cantor Par. 75- The information input to the method and considered in learning may also include information about the history of the task, including the history of changes to the values of task attributes, further including the absolute and relative sequence, timing, frequency, and other measures, properties, and/or patterns of the history of changes to these attribute values. The information about the history of changes to the values of task attributes may include information such as the number of times that a task has been rescheduled, the number of times that a task has been considered completed and then considered not completed, the number of times that the owner of a task has changed, and/or the number of times that any other specific attribute or relationship has changed, among others.)
Furuichi, Christodoulou and Cantor are directed to task analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Furuichi in view of Christodoulou, as taught by Cantor, by utilizing additional analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Furuichi in view of Christodoulou with the motivation of improving the quality of the process (Cantor Par. 111).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US Publication No. 20220058552A1 toTakahashi et al.- Abstract-“ Provided is a project management system having functions of receiving one or more inputs regarding “problem information”, “risk information”, and “task information” (all of the problem information, risk information, and task information are “project management information”), holding the project management information in association with each piece of identification information, acquiring problem solution status information in association with problem identification information, and outputting the acquired information in association with the problem information.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chesiree Walton, whose telephone number is (571) 272-5219. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8 AM and 5 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson, can be reached at (571) 270-5396. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”).
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private 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, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/CHESIREE A WALTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights