DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
[2] A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 December 2025 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
[3] This communication is in response to the Amendment and the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 23 December 2025. It is noted that this application is a Continuation of United States Patent Application Serial No. 17/514,366 filed 29 October 2021, now United States Patent No. 11,494,740. Claims 1-20, 22, 32, and 36 have been cancelled. Claims 21, 23-28, 22, 35, 37-38, and 40 have been amended. Claims 21, 23-31, 33-35, and 37-40 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[4] Applicant's remarks filed 23 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks will be addressed below in the order in which they appear in the noted response.
[i] In response to rejection(s) of claim(s) 21, 23-31, 33-35, and 37-40 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 1 October 2025, Applicant provides the following remarks:
“…The Office Action fails to explain how ‘executing an operation associated with the rule based on the detected change in the first data object and the condition for activation of the second trigger’ describes subject matter relating to a mental process…performing an action on all third-party application based on al detected change associated with the organizational data is not a mental process… "
In response, Examiner respectfully maintains that the claims as presented remain directed to ineligible subject matter. Under Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04):
Specifically, Examiner maintains the claims are directed to analyzing organizational data in the form of an object graph and determining dependencies among objects and assessing whether particular actions and trigger conditions have been met before updating a dependency graph. With respect to Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed invention is directed to ineligible processes performable by Human Mental Processing, representative claim 21 as presented by amendment recites:
“…accessing…organizational data associated with the organization, wherein the organizational data comprises an object graph data structure comprising a plurality of data objects associated with the organizational data, and wherein the organizational data includes employee records having a plurality of attributes…”, “…receiving a rule, the rule having a condition for activation of a first trigger, and wherein the rule is associated with an attribute from the plurality of attributes of the employee records…”, “…determining, based on a dependency map, a dependency between the condition for activation of the first trigger and a first data object from the plurality of data objects…”
As presented by amendment, representative claim 21 further clarifies that the previous recited “executing an operation” to further includes:
“…wherein the operation is an action performed on a third-party application based at least in part on the organizational data, and wherein the third-party application utilizes at least some of the organizational data, wherein the first trigger comprises a predictive trigger, and wherein the action is performed on the third-party application prior to an occurrence of an event with which the predictive trigger is associated…”
Examiner respectfully submits that the steps/function added by amendment provide further clarity with respect to the operations performed based on triggering conditions being met. Respectfully, absent further clarification executed by the recited “computing device” and the general indication that the method is “computer-implemented”, one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably relied upon to perform a defined process to identify changes in stored data, i.e., objects, assess a graph of data and observing depicted dependencies, and executing actions associated with conditions and rules defined in the observed graph by employing human mental processing or by a human using pen and paper (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101) or by utilizing a generic computing system as a tool to assist in the performance of the noted calculations and/or observations, determinations, or judgements (see at least MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 21 as presented by amendment introduces the technical element of a “predictive trigger”. Claim 21 further retains the technical elements including the “third-party application”, “computing device”, the general indication that the method (claim 35) is “computer-implemented” “processors”, “databases”, and “executable instructions” constitute technical features which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed below. Examiner further notes that Mental processes or concepts performed in the human mind including observation and evaluation are considered to be ineligible abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Applicant remarks:
"…The claim elements…recite a combination of additional elements that improves data access and evaluation associated with secure organizational data in order to promptly cause an action to be performed. Additionally, the third-party application does not need access to all of the organizational data, nor does the third-party data need to monitor changes in the data objects in order to determine the activation of the trigger… "
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to considerations under Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)):
Claim 21 as presented by amendment introduces the technical element of a “predictive trigger”. Claim 21 further retains the technical elements including the “third-party application”, “computing device”, the general indication that the method (claim 35) is “computer-implemented” “processors”, “databases”, and “executable instructions”.
As presented, the function(s) or the “predictive trigger” and “third-party application” are limited to performing an action based on a trigger condition being met and utilizing some of the organizational data. Absent clarification of processes performed by recited application, the amended limitation merely requires that any generic application perform some undefined action using the data, e.g., storing data, transmitting data etc. The functions reasonably attributable to the claimed “computing device”, the general indication that the method is “computer-implemented” “processors”, “databases”, and “executable instructions” are limited to receiving or transmitting data or information via a network (e.g., access and disseminate organizational data), storing and retrieving information from a memory (e.g., organizational data, rules, dependencies, triggering conditions and actions) and performing tasks that are otherwise performable in the human mind (e.g., analyze rules and dependencies between data objects and execute operations associated with instructive rules and conditions) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As presented, Examiner respectfully maintains that claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of analyzing organizational data in the form of an object graph and determining dependencies among objects using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment, e.g., generic devices capable of storing and retrieving information from computer memory, transmitting and receiving information over a computer network, and performing known calculations otherwise performable by human mental processing and/or using pen and paper. The claimed analyzing organizational data in the form of an object graph and determining dependencies among objects benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
With respect to consideration of evidence that the claimed invention presents significantly more than the abstract idea under Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05):
Claim 21 as presented by amendment introduces the technical element of a “predictive trigger”. Claim 21 further retains the technical elements including the “third-party application”, “computing device”, the general indication that the method (claim 35) is “computer-implemented” “processors”, “databases”, and “executable instructions” (as noted above in consideration of candidate technical elements under step 2A prong 2).
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., organizational data); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., organizational data, rules, dependencies, triggering conditions and actions); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., analyzing rules and dependencies among data objects). The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation and processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of analyzing organizational data in the form of an object graph and determining dependencies among objects. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., analyzing organizational data in the form of an object graph and determining dependencies among objects, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of analyzing organizational data in the form of an object graph and determining dependencies among objects benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: 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; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); 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); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
[ii] In response to rejection(s) of claim(s) 21, 23-31, 33-35, and 37-40 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 1 October 2025, Applicant provides the following remarks, generally, the Rogynskyy fails to teach the predictive trigger added by amendment.
In response, Examiner notes that the triggers of Rogynskyy are set on defined thresholds but do not appear to act in a predictive manner prior to an observed event.
However, Eliyahu et al. disclose triggering conditions that include applying machine-learning capacity to predict conditions associated with a trigger. Examiner submits that the prediction of condition that will invoke a trigger is reasonably a form of predictive trigger (Eliyahu et al.; paragraphs [0129] [0153] [0201]; See at least workflow implementing data object-based storage of organizational data. See further triggers invoking actions performed by executables based on trigger conditions having been met. See further actions invoked using third-party applications and data sources. See machine-learning applied to anticipate or predict triggering conditions).
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.
[5] Claims 21, 23-31, 33-35, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea absent significantly more, has/have not been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are maintained. The statement of rejection below is reiterated as originally presented in the previous Office Action mailed 1 October 2025. The present amendments and remarks are addressed above under “Response to Remarks/Amendment”.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05) and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) published in the Federal Register, 17 July 2024. Claim(s) 21, 23-31, 33-35, and 37-40 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 21, 35, and 40 are directed to a method, a system, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 21, 35, and 40 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1 (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 35, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of analyzing organizational data in the form of an object graph and determining dependencies among objects and assessing whether particular actions and trigger conditions have been met before updating a dependency graph, which is reasonably considered to be method performable by human Mental Processing and/or or by a human using pen and paper (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Inventions directed to processes performable by Mental Processing are recognized patent ineligible subject matter as defined by the above noted USPTO Policy and Examination Guidance and as informed by the decision of the Court in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. Mental processes or concepts performed in the human mind including observation and evaluation are considered to be ineligible abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
With respect to functions/steps performable by human mental processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 21 recites: “…accessing…organizational data associated with the organization, wherein the organizational data comprises an object graph data structure comprising a plurality of data objects associated with the organizational data, and wherein the organizational data includes employee records having a plurality of attributes…”, “…receiving a rule, the rule having a condition for activation of a first trigger, and wherein the rule is associated with an attribute from the plurality of attributes of the employee records…”, “…determining, based on a dependency map, a dependency between the rule and a first data object from the plurality of data objects…”, “…determining that the condition for the activation of the first trigger is satisfied based on a detected change in the first data object…”, and “…performing an action associated with the activation of the first trigger based on the determination that the condition for the activation of the first trigger has been satisfied…”.
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited “computing device” and the general indication that the method is “computer-implemented”, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that assessing a graph of data and observing depicted dependencies are practicable/performable by a human using pen and paper. By extension, given input information and an associated trigger, one of ordinary skill would be capable of determining whether the input information meets triggering criteria and whether an associated action should be performed by employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2 (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Additional elements of claim 21 that potentially integrate the exception include the “one or more computing devices”. Claim 21 further indicates, generally, that the claimed method is “computer-implemented” as designated in the preamble. With respect to these potential additional elements, the claimed “one or more computing devices” is identified as accessing organizational data.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., data/graph is accessed, dependencies are analyzed, and actions are performed.) as associated with a respective “computing device” or are generally identified as “computer-implemented”. Beyond the general statement that the method is computer-implemented and the accessing of data is performed by a computing device, the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “computer-implemented” or “by a computing device”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The technology as engaged is solely identified as storing and retrieving information, performing tasks that are otherwise performable in the human mind (e.g., analyzing dependencies presented in a graph), and sending and receiving information over a network (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 21 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of analyzing organizational data in the form of an object graph and determining dependencies among objects using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment, e.g., generic devices capable of accessing stored information over a computer network. The claimed analyzing organizational data in the form of an object graph and determining dependencies among objects benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as Published in USPGPUB 2023/0138870, Examiner notes paragraphs [0047]-[0053]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
With respect to the executable routines, the claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures are programmed/configured to: (1) access data; (2) analyze rules and dependencies between data objects; and (3) determine whether triggering condition for an action have been met. While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., organizational data); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., organizational data, rules, dependencies, triggering conditions and actions); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., analyzing rules and dependencies among data objects). The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation and processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of analyzing organizational data in the form of an object graph and determining dependencies among objects. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., analyzing organizational data in the form of an object graph and determining dependencies among objects, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of analyzing organizational data in the form of an object graph and determining dependencies among objects benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: 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; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); 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); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Viewed 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. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In accordance with all relevant considerations and aligned with previous findings of the courts, the technical elements imparted on the method that would potentially provide a basis for meeting a “significantly more” threshold for establishing patent eligibility for an otherwise abstract concept by the use of computer technology fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Independent claims 21 and 40, directed to an apparatus/system and computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 23-31, 33-34, and 37-39, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
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.
[6] Claims 21, 23-31, 33-35, and 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogynskyy et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0372075) in view of Scholtz et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0005174), and further in view of Eliyahu et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0236880).
With respect to (currently amended) claim 21, Rogynskyy et al. disclose a computer system that implements an organizational management platform to manage applications for an organization, the computer system comprising: one or more processors; one or more databases that collectively store organizational data associated with the organization, wherein the organizational data comprises an object graph data structure comprising a plurality of data objects associated with the organizational data, and wherein the organizational data includes employee records having a plurality of attributes (Rogynskyy et al.; paragraphs [0036]-[0038] [0048] [0072]; See at least generate entity graph having record nodes); and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to perform operations, the operations comprising: receiving a rule, the rule having a condition for activation of a first trigger, and wherein the rule is associated with an attribute from the plurality of attributes of the employee records; (Rogynskyy et al.; paragraphs [0044] [0112]-[0113] [0115] [0128] [0133]; See at least tagging and criteria for generating a match between electronic activities and record objects in the graph. The tagging and matching criteria based on the tag are reasonably rules, triggers, and conditions for the trigger), determining, based on a dependency map, a dependency between the condition for activation of the first trigger and a first data object from the plurality of data objects (Rogynskyy et al.; paragraphs [0044] [0112]-[0113] [0115] [0128] [0133]; See at least tagging and criteria for generating a match between electronic activities and record objects in the graph); determining that the condition for the activation of the first trigger is satisfied based on a detected change in the first data object; detecting a change in the first data object that indicates the activation of the trigger (Rogynskyy et al.; paragraphs [0042] [0065] [0081]-[0083] [0162]; See at least system monitors changes in nodes/objects and recalculates graph/connections based on detection of a change to a node); and executing an operation associated with the rule based on the detected change in the second data object and the condition for activation of the second trigger (Rogynskyy et al.; paragraphs [0047]-[0048] [0080] [0092] [0115] [0133] [0159]; See at least confidence/trust scoring to generate connections between nodes/object. The criteria which initiate actions based on observed electronic activities and the associated recognition of tags along with the scoring to determine matching and strengths of matching are reasonably triggers, conditions or criteria, and actions. Further, the actions initiated to assign electronic activity to nodes/objects based on identification of a tag/trigger are reasonably also forms of actions activated/initiated by a trigger).
With respect to the elements of the dependency map and to the designation of “data objects”, Rogynskyy et al. disclose a system which utilizes ingested organization electronic activity (communications, meeting attendance, etc.) to construct an organizational graph of nodes. Rogynskyy et al. further disclose that the nodes include record objects comprised of entity organizational data as well as other nodes having profiles pertaining to individuals interacting in the organization. The input policies, tagging, and assignment of monitored activities to nodes include data objects is governed by rules/policies and is directed to nodes including the record objects. Accordingly, while Examiner maintains that each of the nodes provided by Rogynskyy et al. include stored data (e.g., they are data objects) associated with the position in the graph, Rogynskyy et al. fail to explicitly refer to each of the nodes, other than the records objects, are data objects.
However, as evidenced by Scholz et al., it is well known in the art to construct/maintain, in an organizational graph database, data objects having relationships to other data objects where the data objects have dependencies on each other and are further governed rules and triggering events input by a subscriber/user of the system (Scholz et al.; paragraphs [0021]-[0024] [0040] [0050]; See at least relational database including graph database of data objects. See further data objects associated with and governed by rules and conditions. See additionally specific application to time and attendance functions of the organization).
With respect to the recited “executing an operation” claim 21 is amended to further specify “…wherein the operation is an action performed on a third-party application based at least in part on the organizational data, and wherein the third-party application utilizes at least some of the organizational data, wherein the first trigger comprises a predictive trigger, and wherein the action is performed on the third-party application prior to an occurrence of an event with which the predictive trigger is associated…”
With respect to triggered execution of operations based on observed changes to the organizational data structure, Rogynskyy et al. disclose a system which utilizes ingested organization electronic activity (communications, meeting attendance, etc.) to construct an organizational graph of nodes. Rogynskyy et al. further disclose criteria which initiate actions based on observed electronic activities and the associated recognition of tags along with the scoring to determine matching and strengths of matching are reasonably triggers. While the actions performed responsive to change criteria are reasonably operations executed in response to conditions/criteria being met for a first trigger, Rogynskyy et al. state that the operations are performed on a third-party application.
However, as evidenced by Eliyahu et al., it is well-known to invoke actions by a third-party application based on trigger conditions being met in an organizational data structure or workflow (Eliyahu et al.; paragraphs [0042] [0061] [0086] [0089] [0129] [0153]; See at least workflow implementing data object-based storage of organizational data. See further triggers invoking actions performed by executables based on trigger conditions having been met. See further actions invoked using third-party applications and data sources).
Eliyahu et al. further disclose triggering conditions that include applying machine-learning capacity to predict conditions associated with a trigger. Examiner submits that the prediction of condition that will invoke a trigger is reasonably a form of predictive trigger (Eliyahu et al.; paragraphs [0129] [0153] [0201]; See at least workflow implementing data object-based storage of organizational data. See further triggers invoking actions performed by executables based on trigger conditions having been met. See further actions invoked using third-party applications and data sources. See machine-learning applied to anticipate or predict triggering conditions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the node structure including stored data associated with the node features of Rogynskyy et al. by further including a designation of each repository of data as a data object as taught by Scholz et al. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of organizing organizational data into relational data objects. As Rogynskyy et al. disclose the use of a graph nodes structure having nodes with specified data in the context of a system and method for organizing organizational data into relational data objects and Scholz et al. similarly discloses the utility of designating each repository of data as a data object in the context of a system and method for organizing organizational data into relational data objects, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of improving the efficiency and flexibility of managing organizational functionalities including payroll and time and attendance in a multi-tenant distributed environments (Scholz et al.; paragraph [0002]).
Regarding the combination that further includes Eliyahu et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the node structure including stored organizational data associated with triggered actions associated with changes to data structures of Rogynskyy et al. by further including triggering third-party application invocations based on triggering conditions associated with an organizational data structure as taught by Eliyahu et al. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of organizing organizational data into relational data objects. As Rogynskyy et al. disclose the use of a node structure including stored organizational data associated with triggered actions associated with changes to data structures in the context of a system and method for organizing organizational data into relational data objects and Eliyahu et al. similarly discloses the utility of triggering third-party application invocations based on triggering conditions associated with an organizational data structure in the context of a system and method for organizing organizational data into relational data objects, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of improving the data modification and updating operations requiring interaction with third-party data sources without a need to maintain live connections to each data source identified in a workflow (Eliyahu et al.; paragraph [0129]).
With respect to claims 23 and 24, while Rogynskyy et al. disclose the input of policies/rules via a graphical user interface (Rogynskyy et al.; paragraphs [0141] [0330]-[0336]; See at least interface for displaying and defining policies/rules which are specific to nodes and filtering and defining tagging relationships) and further specify that record objects and policy/rules governing gathering of employee attendance at functions/meetings, Rogynskyy et al. fail to specify that the entity relational graphing system is specifically applied to a time and attendance system.
However, with respect to claim 23, Scholz et al. disclose a system wherein the applications for the organization managed by the organizational management platform includes a time and attendance application, and wherein the rule is received from a user interface of the time and attendance application (Scholz et al.; paragraphs [0032]-[0035] [0042] [0048] [0050]; See at least user interfaces having selectable rules scenarios and inputs. See further interface providing selections of rule conditions and specified data objects. See further data-object rules and conditions applicable to tame and attendance functions).
With respect to claim 24, Scholz et al. disclose a system wherein the user interface allows a user to configure the condition for activation of the first trigger based at least in part on a predictive model trained by data associated with the time and attendance application (Scholz et al.; paragraphs [0036]-[0040]; See at least rules, conditions, and triggers configured via selections on the UI).
However, with respect to claim 25, Scholz et al. disclose a system the operations further comprising: presenting on a user interface a plurality of rules and a plurality of triggers, wherein the received rule is being selected from the plurality of rules, and wherein the first trigger associated with the received rule is selected from the plurality of triggers (Scholz et al.; paragraphs [0036]-[0040] and [0050]; See at least rules, conditions, and triggers for time and attendance functions selectable via UI’s).
With respect to claim 26, Scholz et al. disclose a system wherein the organizational data includes employee records having a plurality of attributes, and wherein the plurality of rules are associated with the plurality of attributes of the employee records (Scholz et al.; paragraphs [0036]-[0040] and [0050]; See at least rules, conditions, and triggers for time and attendance functions selectable via UI’s).
With respect to claim 27, Scholz et al. disclose a system the operations further comprising: receiving a threshold value associated with the received rule; and wherein the determining that the condition for activation of the first trigger is further based on the received threshold value (Scholz et al.; paragraphs [0036]-[0040] and [0050]; See at least rules, conditions, and triggers for time and attendance functions selectable via UI’s).
Regarding claims 23-27, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the interface features of Rogynskyy et al. by further including selectable rules, conditions, and triggering criteria presented on a UI as taught by Scholz et al. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of organizing organizational data into relational data objects. As Rogynskyy et al. disclose the use of an interface for setting system parameters in the context of a system and method for organizing organizational data into relational data objects and Scholz et al. similarly discloses the utility of a user interface providing selections for rules, conditions, and triggering events for assembly of data objects in the context of a system and method for organizing organizational data into relational data objects, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of improving the efficiency and flexibility of managing organizational functionalities including payroll and time and attendance in a multi-tenant distributed environments (Scholz et al.; paragraph [0002]).
With respect to claims 28 and 29, Rogynskyy et al. disclose analyzing the rule in view of information describing one or more relationships between each of the plurality of the data objects associated with the organizational data; and wherein the one or more data objects from the plurality of the data objects that are associated with the rule have a relationship with the rule (Rogynskyy et al.; paragraphs [0044] [0047]-[0048] [0092] [0129]-[0130]; See at least construction of organizational entity node graph based on observed electronic activity. See further tagging and confidence scoring to determine relationships among nodes/record objects and activities). Rogynskyy et al. fail to specify that the assigned rules are associated with rule data objects.
However, with respect to claims 28 and 29, Schotz et al. disclose wherein the rule is associated with a rule data object (Scholz et al.; paragraphs [0027]-[0030] and [0035]-[0036]; See at least a plurality rule scenarios stored in structure and associated with specified data objects) and wherein the data structure further comprises a plurality of rule data objects that correspond to a plurality of rules, and wherein the received rule is selected from the plurality of rules (Scholz et al.; paragraphs [0027]-[0030] and [0035]-[0036]; See at least a plurality rule scenarios stored in structure and associated with specified data objects).
Regarding claims 28-29, the conclusions obviousness and rationale to modify as discussed above with respect to claims 23-27 are applicable to claims 28-29 and are herein incorporated by reference.
With respect to claim 30, while Rogynskyy et al. disclose the input of policies/rules via a graphical user interface (Rogynskyy et al.; paragraphs [0141] [0330]-[0336]; See at least interface for displaying and defining policies/rules which are specific to nodes and filtering and defining tagging relationships), Rogynskyy et al. fail to specify that the entity relational graphing system is specifically applied to a time and attendance system.
However, with respect to claim 30, Scholz et al. disclose a system wherein the object graph data structure further comprising a plurality of attendance data objects that correspond to attendance data for a plurality of employees of the organization (Scholz et al.; paragraphs [0032]-[0035] [0042] [0048] [0050]; See at least user interfaces having selectable rules scenarios and inputs. See further interface providing selections of rule conditions and specified data objects. See further data-object rules and conditions applicable to tame and attendance functions).
With respect to claim 31, Rogynskyy et al. disclose a system wherein the include the first data object, the operations further comprising: retrieving, from an attendance database at regular occurring intervals, attendance data associated with the plurality of attendance data objects, the attendance data having an attendance value for the first data object; and wherein the change in the first data object is detected when the attendance value for the first data object has crossed a threshold value (Rogynskyy et al.; paragraphs [0061] [0092] [0107] [0118]-[0122] [0238]; See at least attendance data collected into record objects. See further thresholds applied to scoring and assignment of data to objects. See further periodic intervals and predetermined times applied to electronic activity including attendance data).
Regarding claims 30 and 31, the conclusions obviousness and rationale to modify as discussed above with respect to claim 21 are applicable to claims 30 and 31and are herein incorporated by reference.
Claim 32 has been cancelled.
With respect to claim 33, Rogynskyy et al. disclose a system wherein the operations further comprising: obtaining regulations associated with a specific industry from the third-party application; updating the dependency map associated with the rule based on the obtained regulations (Rogynskyy et al.; paragraphs [0044] [0047]-[0048] [0092] [0129]-[0130]; See at least construction of organizational entity node graph based on observed electronic activity. See further tagging and confidence scoring to determine relationships among nodes/record objects and activities); and updating the condition for activation of the first trigger based on the obtained regulations (Rogynskyy et al.; paragraphs [0330]-[0336]; See at least policies and associated filtering definable at industry, user, group, and enterprise level).
With respect to claim 34, Rogynskyy et al. disclose a system wherein the operations further comprising: generating the dependency map associated with the rule, the dependency map having one or more data objects from the plurality of the data objects that are associated with the rule (Rogynskyy et al.; paragraphs [0036]-[0038] [0048] [0112]-[0114] [0168]; See at least graph, nodes and record objects, and rules).
Claims 35, 37-39, and 40, as presented by amendment, substantially repeat the subject matter addressed above with respect to claims 21, 23-34 as directed to performed method/process and enabling computer-executable instructions. With respect to these elements, Rogynskyy et al. disclose performance of the method/process steps employing the enabling systems and executable instructions. Accordingly, claims 35, 37-39, and 40 are rejected under the applied teachings, conclusions obviousness, and rationale to modify as discussed above with respect to claims 21, 23-34.
Double Patenting
[7] 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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 e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21, 23-35, and 37-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,494,740. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because The current invention and issued patent 11,494,740 are drawn to methods, systems, and computer-executable instructions stored on statutory computer-readable media for determining and presented employee absences to supervisors based on organizational relationships. Further, the distinctions between the claims of the instant application and the ‘740 patent are limited to a rewording of common features and to omissions of elements recited in the claims of the ‘740 application. The claims from all applications above are significantly similar and the claimed features seem to be identical with various obvious alternate method.
Examiner further notes that the omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625