DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final, First Office Action on the Merits in response to communications filed February 7, 2024. Claims 1–7 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to calculate statistic”. Examiner recommends amending the element to recite “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to calculate a statistic” in order to address the inadvertent typographical omission.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 6–7 recite “the associated data processing” in the element to “display”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “a result of [[the]] associated data processing” in the element to “display”.
Claims 1 and 6–7 further recite “the input comment” in the element to “notify”. Although the claims previously recite “an input of a comment”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the input comment” in the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “the graph of information on the
In view of the above, claims 1 and 6–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2–5, which depend from claim 1, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 2–5 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “an input of a comment” in line 3. However, claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, previously recites “an input of a comment”. As a result, the scope of claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of claim 2 to reference the recitation of claim 1 or intends to introduce a second, different “input of a comment”.
For purposes of examination, claim 2 is interpreted as reciting “[[an]] the input of [[a]] the comment” in line 3.
Claim 3 recites “the data” and “the assigned card” in lines 4 and 4–5, respectively. Although the claim previously recites “an assignment of a card”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 3 is interpreted as reciting “perform a process of displaying [[the]] data that is input to the
In view of the above, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant thoroughly review the claims for compliance with the requirements set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–7 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements to “perform data processing on data that is input from a card corresponding to a connection source”; “display a graph that includes a plurality of cards each of which outputs a result of the associated data processing to a card corresponding to a connection destination”; and “notify, when an input of a comment with respect to an area relevant to the graph that is displayed has been received, a a user relevant to the graph of information on the input comment.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for notifying users of comments related to a processing graph. Further, the elements recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 6–7 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 6–7 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–5 further describe the process for notifying users of comments related to a processing graph and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–5 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include processing circuitry and a terminal device. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 6–7 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 7 further includes a computer-readable medium and a computer, the additional elements, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 6–7 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–5 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–5 depend. As a result, claims 2–5 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include processing circuitry and a terminal device. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 6–7 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 7 further includes a computer-readable medium and a computer, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 6–7 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–5 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–5 depend. As a result, claims 2–5 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1–3 and 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOZIOLEK et al. (U.S. 2021/0318675) in view of ITTAH et al. (U.S. 2014/0298207).
Claims 1 and 6–7: Koziolek discloses an information processing device comprising: processing circuitry (See paragraphs 29–30, wherein a computer executing program instructions is disclosed) configured to:
perform data processing on data that is input from a card corresponding to a connection source (See paragraphs 35–36, wherein process values are generated from time-series data and an event analysis module, and wherein process values are derived from correlated and cross-correlated process values within a directed graph representing a system topology; see also paragraph 15);
display a graph that includes a plurality of cards each of which outputs a result of the associated data processing to a card corresponding to a connection destination (See paragraphs 34–36, wherein a subgraph designating a portion of the directed graph representing the system topology graph is displayed on an operator interface; see also paragraphs 17–18, wherein the graph is further disclosed, and paragraph 28, wherein the complete system is represented as a process flow diagram); and
notify, when an input with respect to an area relevant to the graph that is displayed has been received, a terminal device used by a user relevant to the graph of information on the input (See paragraphs 35–36, wherein the subgraph display is generated in response to system or operator triggers; see also paragraph 23, wherein the system identifies correlated nodes within the system graph for the operator). Koziolek does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Ittah discloses functionality to notify, when an input of a comment with respect to an area relevant to the task that is displayed has been received, a terminal device used by a user relevant to the task of information on the input comment (See FIG. 14 and paragraph 234, wherein users are notified of associated task comments, updates, and/or other activities associated with the displayed task).
Koziolek discloses a system directed to managing processes within a system using a system graph within an interface. Ittah discloses a system directed to managing processes of within a project using a collaborative workspace interface. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing operational processes using an interface. The technique of utilizing comment notifications is applicable to the system of Koziolek as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing operational processes using an interface.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ittah would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ittah to the teachings of Koziolek would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate operational process management into similar systems. Further, applying comment notifications to Koziolek would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
With respect to claim 7, Koziolek further discloses a computer-readable recording medium storing therein an information processing program that causes a computer to execute a process (See paragraphs 29–30).
Claim 2: Koziolek discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein, the processing circuitry is further configured to, when an input with respect to one of the plurality of cards that are included in the graph displayed has been received, notify the terminal device used by the user relevant to the graph of the information on the input and location information on the card that corresponds to an input target (See paragraphs 35–36, wherein, in response to system or operator triggers, the subgraph display is generated from the overall system graph, and wherein the subgraph is displayed on the operator interface; see also paragraph 23, wherein the system identifies correlated nodes within the system graph for the operator). Koziolek does not expressly disclose the remaining elements.
Ittah discloses when an input of a comment has been received, notify the terminal device used by the user relevant to the input comment and location information that corresponds to an input target of the comment (See FIG. 14 and paragraph 234, wherein users are notified of associated task comments, updates, and/or other activities associated with the displayed task, and paragraphs 235–239, in view of paragraph 189, wherein mention functions are converted into a link).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ittah would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 3: Koziolek discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein, the processing circuitry is further configured to, perform a process of displaying the data that is input to the card, or, a result of data processing performed on the card (See paragraphs 34–36, wherein a subgraph designating a portion of the directed graph representing the system topology graph is displayed on an operator interface, and wherein the subgraph displays process values and correlated values within the subgraph). Koziolek does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Ittah discloses when an assignment of a task has been received, perform a process of displaying the data that is input to the task, or, a result of processing performed on the assigned task (See FIG. 14 and paragraph 234, in view of paragraph 227, wherein users are notified of associated task comments, updates, and/or other activities associated with the displayed task, and wherein tasks are assigned to users; see also paragraph 64).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ittah would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 5: Koziolek discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to calculate statistic relevant to the input, and display the statistic (See paragraphs 34–36, wherein process values are calculated and displayed on the generated subgraph). Koziolek does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Ittah discloses functionality to calculate statistic relevant to the comment (See paragraphs 170 and 63, in view of paragraph 234, wherein usage statistics related to documents and workspaces are generated).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ittah would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOZIOLEK et al. (U.S. 2021/0318675) in view of ITTAH et al. (U.S. 2014/0298207), and in further view of CHIU (U.S. 2016/0248853).
Claim 4: As disclosed above, Koziolek and Ittah disclose the elements of claim 1. Although Koziolek discloses inputs received from the terminal device used by the user relevant to the graph (See citations above), and Ittah discloses a comment received from the user relevant to the task (See citations above), Koziolek and Ittah do not expressly disclose the remaining elements of claim 4.
Chiu discloses functionality to specify, based on an access result of an access to the comment received from the terminal device used by the user, the user who has accessed the comment, and display information on the user who has accessed the comment and information on a user who has not accessed the comment (See paragraph 57, in view of paragraph 47, wherein a read list and an unread list are displayed to authorized viewers).
As disclosed above, Koziolek discloses a system directed to managing processes within a system using a system graph within an interface, and Ittah discloses a system directed to managing processes of within a project using a collaborative workspace interface. Chiu discloses a system directed to managing projects using collaborative messaging. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing operational processes using an interface. The technique of managing access results is applicable to the systems of Koziolek and Ittah as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing operational processes using an interface.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Chiu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Chiu to the teachings of Koziolek and Ittah would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate operational process management into similar systems. Further, applying access management to Koziolek and Ittah would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Simonovic et al. (U.S. 2018/0053328) discloses a system directed to processing computational workflows within a workflow graph;
Sattler et al. (U.S. 2021/0318791) discloses a system directed to navigating a process graph; and
Mullins et al. (U.S. 2018/0300304) discloses a system directed to collaborative review of a workflow graph.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623