DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this FINAL Office Action.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1, 8 and 15 recites when job architecture attributes corresponding to the employees match the job architecture alignment of the growth track, which is indefinite since “alignment” is a relative word which does not have definite boundaries that can me measured nor defined in the context of job architecture attributes vs. job architecture alignment of the growth track. Also, Applicant’s wherein clause reciting wherein the employees having job architecture attributes that match the job function and job type are automatically assigned to the growth track, and the employees having job level attributes are automatically assigned to corresponding track levels based on the mapping of the one or more job levels to the one or more track levels, is vague and indefinite since it is unclear what constitutes track levels based on mapping job levels to the track levels, which is circular logic and unclear. Necessary clarification and correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception under the subject matter eligibility two-part statutory analysis, as provided below.
Regarding Step 1,
Step 1 addresses whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter according to MPEP §2106.03. Claim 1 recites a system (apparatus/machine), claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium (article of manufacture), and claim 8 recites a method (process) which all fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. Independent claim 1, also representative of independent claims 8 and 15 for the same abstract features, is underlined below which recite the following claim limitations, as an abstract idea:
Claims 1, 8 and 15:
creating a growth track;
associating the growth track with one or more competencies;
associating the growth track with one or more track levels;
aligning the growth track with a job architecture, the job architecture including a job function, a job type, and one or more job tracks;
mapping the one or more job levels to the one or more track levels;
creating a growth area, the growth area relating to the one or more competencies; and
automatically assigning employees to the growth track when job architecture attributes corresponding to the employees match the job architecture alignment of the growth track, wherein the employees having job architecture attributes that match the job function and job type are automatically assigned to the growth track, and the employees having job level attributes are automatically assigned to corresponding track levels based on the mapping of the one or more job levels to the one or more track levels.
The underlined claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas, and includes at least managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for managing personal behavior/relationships or interactions between people because the claimed steps recite managing a user’s job growth track based on one or more competencies. Accordingly, since the claimed invention describes a process that falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Alternatively, the underlined claim limitations recite “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, which can practically be performed in the human mind and/or with the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper. The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation. The limitations recite a mental-process type abstract idea as they can be accomplished by including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion based on analyzing a user’s job growth area and determining the user’s job growth track based on one or more job competencies and sharing an update pertaining to the progress of the user within the job growth area.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application according to MPEP §2106.04(d). The claimed invention contains the following additional elements:
A system and non-transitory computer readable medium,
One or more processors;
One or more computer memories;
A set of (software) instructions stored into the one or more computer memories;
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
The claimed invention merely provides an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with generic computer processes and components recited at a high-level of generality using computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely “apply it” without any meaningful technological limits or any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into any practical application since they do not impose any non-generic meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B,
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05.
As discussed above, the claimed additional elements recited above amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” using generic computer components and functionality. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components are insufficient to provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the claimed additional elements merely limit the abstract idea to be executed in a computer environment, thus do nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements are claimed at a high-level of generality and add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the claimed limitations is equally generic and otherwise held to be abstract since the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components operating in their ordinary and generic capacities of what is typically expected of computers storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data between generic computer devices. The claimed invention is not patent eligible because the additional elements are merely invoked as tools to execute the abstract idea and thus are insufficient to amount to an inventive concept significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 they merely further narrow and reiterate the same abstract ideas for storing and updating data, and receiving, storing and transmitting user job data using generic data storage and transmittal techniques with the same additional elements as recited above which provide nothing more than applying the abstract idea using generic computer technology components. Furthermore dependent claims include the following additional elements: an additional user interface, a library (data storage). These additional elements from the dependent claims also do not provide any improvement to technology, technical field or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and at best simply applying the abstract idea executed in a general-purpose computer environment. Therefore the dependent claims are also directed to ineligible subject matter since they do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, after considering all claim elements in Claims 1-20 both individually and as an ordered combination, it has been determined that the claimed invention as a whole, is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since nothing in the claim limitations provide significantly more than the abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Habichler (US 20070203711).
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 15,
Habichler discloses:
A system, method and non-transitory computer readable medium comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer memories; a set of instructions stored into the one or more computer memories, the set of instructions configuring the one or more computer processors to perform operations (Fig. 1 System, Abstract, Summary and [0116] memory and computer readable medium), the operations comprising:
creating a growth track, associating the growth track with one or more competencies, associating the growth track with one or more track levels ([0093] Determining the possible career paths from the starting work position type to the selected target work position type, and displaying those possible career paths. In this example, two such possible career paths are available. In FIG. 8C, Employee ZZ then selects one of the two possible career paths, and in response the system presents a variety of competency-related information for that selected career path in FIG. 8D);
aligning the growth track with a job architecture, the job architecture including a job function, a job type, and one or more job tracks, mapping the one or more job levels to the one or more track levels ([0094] the system presents information in FIG. 8D about competency gaps for Employee ZZ for each of the work position types along the selected career path. The illustrated competency gap screen includes a section 810 that shows existing competencies for Employee ZZ, and sections 820, 830 and 840 illustrate competency gaps for Employee ZZ corresponding to each of the three work position types along the selected career path. For example, section 820 illustrates competency gaps between Employee ZZ's current competencies and the required competencies for Employee ZZ's current work position type);
creating a growth area, the growth area relating to the one or more competencies, ([0094-0095] After presenting the competency gap information to Employee ZZ, the system then assists Employee ZZ in developing an action plan to manage his future career so as to be qualified for the target work position type within a specified period of time. In particular, FIG. 8E illustrates a time-based action plan that includes suggestions for a variety of actions over time that will eliminate or reduce the competency gaps along the career path. In the illustrated embodiment, the system also ranks the actions according to importance for Employee ZZ, and provides indications of the most important actions (illustrated here in bold format). For example, the first two suggested actions are to complete a B.S. degree and to achieve an “Expert” skill level for the “C++ Skills” competency, as both of those would eliminate significant competency gaps for the next work position type along the career path. After achieving the “Expert” skill level and mostly completing the degree, the system recommends that Employee ZZ begin applying for internal work positions of type “Senior Software Engineer—ABC Division”, with the plan being for Employee ZZ to receive such a position within 18 months from the current time, see also [0111-0114] and [0132]).
Regarding Claims 2 & 9 and 16, Habichler discloses: wherein the creating of the growth area is based on an input received from a manager of the employees via an additional user interface ([0026] target competencies for members of an organization are identified at least in part based on information specified by appropriate other members of the organization (e.g., supervisors or group managers). For example, a manager of a group in an organization can specify aggregate target competencies for the group, and can view information about resulting competency gaps for the group. The facility can then assist the manager in generating a plan to reduce the group competency gaps in various ways, such as by identifying particular group members that are responsible for reducing or eliminating at least portions of the competency gaps and/or by searching for new potential group members whose current or planned competencies would similarly reduce or eliminate such competency gaps);
automatically assigning employees to the growth track when job architecture attributes corresponding to the employees match the job architecture alignment of the growth track, wherein the employees having job architecture attributes that match the job function and job type are automatically assigned to the growth track, and the employees having job level attributes are automatically assigned to corresponding track levels based on the mapping of the one or more job levels to the one or more track levels ([0075-0076] after specifying the competency hierarchy, an administrative user then assigns competency-related information to defined work positions and to learning activities to employees. Each work position type can have one or more associated competencies, for each competency associated with a work position type that is a skill, there is also a corresponding rating system having multiple defined skill levels, an administrative user may define mappings of competency-related information to work position types, [0102-0104] matching and assigning employees based on skill level and job requirements and competency-related information, [0113] assign target competencies or competency gaps to be corrected to members of employees, [0136-0137] specifying one or more of the group members to whom a competency gap is to be assigned to correct the competency gap that is assigned to them, and further assign those competency gaps to members of that sub-group, see also [0088-0097]).
Regarding Claims 3 & 10, and 17, Habichler discloses: wherein the growth area further includes one or more additional competences, the one or more additional competencies associated with an additional growth track ([0093-0094] system determines the possible career paths from the starting work position type to the selected target work position type, and displays those possible career paths. In this example, two such possible career paths are available, [0129-0130] multiple career paths based on competency related information and work position type, [0027] identify the competency gaps that exist for the member relative to each position type along the career path and/or between each pair of adjacent position types along the career path. After competency gaps are identified, actions to reduce those competency gaps can be identified for possible inclusion in a future action plan for the member).
Regarding Claim 4, 11, and 18, Habichler discloses: wherein the one or more competencies include on or more characteristics or one or more skills corresponding to the growth track ([0075] Each work position type can have one or more associated competencies, which in the illustrated embodiment can be defined as being required or preferred. In addition, for each competency associated with a work position type that is a skill, there is also a corresponding rating system having multiple defined skill levels).
Regarding Claim 5, 12, and 19, Habichler discloses: wherein the one or more competencies are selectable by a track administrator from a library of competencies via a user interface ([0075-0076] an administrative user may define an arbitrary number of rating systems with arbitrary skill levels, and associate any combination of skill and rating system to any work position type. In addition, while also not illustrated here, in some embodiments particular work positions of a defined type may be defined to have associated competencies that vary from the competencies associated with the defined type, such as defining a competency that is merely preferred for the defined type to be required for a particular work position, FIG. 6B illustrates an example screen with which an administrative user may define mappings of competency-related information to work position types, including a section 610 with various defined work position types for the organization and a section 620 with additional details about a selected one of the work position types).
Regarding Claim 6, 13 and 20, Habichler discloses: wherein the growth area includes one or more actions, the one or more actions associated with one or more due dates, and wherein the update pertaining to the progress of the user relates to a completion of the one or more actions before the one or more due dates ([0090-0094] After Employee ZZ has completed the scheduling of the course instance, various competency-related information for Employee ZZ is automatically updated. For example, as is shown in FIG. 7C, the planned competencies of Employee ZZ are updated to reflect the new competency that is expected to result from the scheduled training course, including a planned accomplishment date for the new competency based on the schedule for the course, and [0142-0144] scheduled learning activities are then added to the planned actions for the employee, and the planned competencies of the employee are also updated to reflect those activities, information such as dates in which any or specified skill levels were achieved).
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 of this title, 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.
Note: 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habichler (US 20070203711) in view of TORRES-SOTO (US 20200349504).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14,
Habichler discloses: based on the sharing of the update, providing the update to a manager of the employees via an additional user interface ([0012] Manager receives indications of modifications to competency-related information for employees, and updates the competency information as appropriate, [0025] automatically detect the completion or performance of at least some such learning activities by individuals and automatically update the current competency information and resulting competency gap information for those individuals, [0085] explicit recommendations or requirements from the employee’s manager can be provided, [0091] validation from Employee ZZ's supervisor M was required to confirm the new competency, and so that validation was automatically solicited from that supervisor upon completion of the training course. After that validation was received from the Supervisor, the illustrated changes (updates) to Employee ZZ's competency-related information take effect)
Although Habichler discloses providing updates to a manager, Habichler does not explicitly specify the occurrence of updates during a one-one-one meeting between the user and the manager.
Nonetheless, Torres-Soto discloses providing the update to a manager via an additional user interface during a one-one-one meeting between the user and the manager ([0165] A carrier user having a meeting with his or her supervisor, [0323] screenshot displayed in the user interface 630 of the supervisor terminal 320 showing a performance to plan screen page according to some embodiments. The user interface 630 may display the performance to plan screen page when the supervisor 510 taps on a workload performance icon 6710).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective
filing date of the invention, to modify updates of Habichler, to incorporate a one-one-one meeting between the employee and the manager as taught by Torres-Soto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a one-one-one meeting between the user and the manager for the benefit of an improved tracking of the employee’s workload performance (Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment have been considered however, they are found to be unpersuasive. Habichler discloses automatically assigning employees to the growth track when job architecture attributes corresponding to the employees match the job architecture alignment of the growth track, wherein the employees having job architecture attributes that match the job function and job type are automatically assigned to the growth track, and the employees having job level attributes are automatically assigned to corresponding track levels based on the mapping of the one or more job levels to the one or more track levels ([0075-0076] after specifying the competency hierarchy, an administrative user then assigns competency-related information to defined work positions and to learning activities to employees. Each work position type can have one or more associated competencies, for each competency associated with a work position type that is a skill, there is also a corresponding rating system having multiple defined skill levels, an administrative user may define mappings of competency-related information to work position types, [0102-0104] matching and assigning employees based on skill level and job requirements and competency-related information, [0113] assign target competencies or competency gaps to be corrected to members of employees, [0136-0137] specifying one or more of the group members to whom a competency gap is to be assigned to correct the competency gap that is assigned to them, and further assign those competency gaps to members of that sub-group, see also [0088-0097]). Thus, the claimed invention fails to overcome the prior art.
Relevant Prior Art
The relevant prior art made of record below is not relied upon but considered pertinent
to applicant's disclosure and can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Relevant Prior Art References and Non-Patent Literature
US 20220215317 Methods and Apparatus for Talent Assessment
US 20240320773
US 20240265350
US 20240242181
US 20240232745
US 20230230011
A. Gugnani, V. K. Reddy Kasireddy and K. Ponnalagu, "Generating Unified Candidate Skill Graph for Career Path Recommendation," 2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW), Singapore, 2018, pp. 328-333, doi: 10.1109/ICDMW.2018.00054.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
The relevant prior art made of record not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the current and/or previous PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to LAURA YESILDAG whose direct telephone number is (571) 270-5066 and work schedule is generally Monday-Friday, from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
In order to receive any email communication from the Examiner, filing for official authorization for Internet Communication is required. The authorization form can be accessed at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
Examiner interviews can be requested by telephone or are available using the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, LYNDA JASMIN, can be reached at (571) 272-6782 for any urgent matter that needs immediate attention. Additional information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the USPTO Patent Center. For more information about the USPTO Patent Center, please access https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ The Patent Center is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications and can be contacted for questions at 1-866-217-9197 or 571-272-4100.
/LAURA YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629