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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action.
In response to Examiner's communication of 5/8/2025, Applicant responded on 8/14/2025. Amended claims 1-12, 14-17, 19-20.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to claims 1-12, 14-17, 19-20 are not sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous action.
Applicant's amendments to claims 1-12, 14-17, 19-20 are not sufficient to overcome the prior art rejections set forth in the previous action.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits, “…Amended claim 1, under its broadest interpretation, is directed to a technical solution to solve the technical problem of calculating a proficiency level for each staff member belonging to an organization....Amended claim 1 recites the limitations of "allocation of the each staff member is determined based on the determined productivity level." (Emphasis added). At least the above limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a human mind cannot practically perform physical "allocation of the each staff member is determined based on the determined productivity level." Applying the rule in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), claim 1 does not fall into the grouping of mental process. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 does not fall into the grouping of a mental process as asserted in the Office Action…amended claim 1 is still not directed to an abstract idea because amended claim 1 as a whole integrates the alleged judicial exceptions into a practical application (e.g., "allocation of the each staff is determined based on the determined productivity level")...amended claim 1 recites limitations of "allocation of the each staff member is determined based on the determined productivity level." (Emphasis added). Such features help to efficiently allocate physical resources… amended claim 1 recites a particular solution to address the computer-centric challenge of calculating a proficiency level for each staff member belonging to an organization. For example, claim 1 recites "allocation of the each staff member is determined based on the determined productivity level..." (Emphasis added)…claim 1 recites and uses a particular machine, such as calculation processor for determining staff member allocation. Accordingly, the limitations recited in claim 1 qualifies as "significantly more"…” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
By Applicant’s own admission, the claims and the argued elements, are directed to, … calculating a proficiency level for each staff member belonging to an organization… perform physical "allocation of the each staff member is determined based on the determined productivity level… efficiently allocate physical resources… challenge of calculating a proficiency level for each staff member belonging to an organization…, which is a problem directed to organizing human activity (i.e. human observing and evaluating human operating computer mouse and keyboard to determine human work proficiency productivity level and allocating and assigning human staff member to perform work based on human staff member productivity level) and a mental process (i.e. human observing and evaluating human operating computer mouse and keyboard to determine human work proficiency productivity level and allocating and assigning human staff member to perform work based on human staff member productivity level), as established in Step 2A Prong 1. This problem does not specifically arise in the realm of computer technology, but rather, this problem existed and was addressed long before the advent of computers. Thus, the claims do not recite a technical improvement to a technical problem or necessarily roots in computing technologies. The alleged solutions are solutions directed to solving abstract ideas, which are still abstract ideas. Additionally, pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea, and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Further, these additional elements generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment, namely the environment of a computer, performing extra solution activities. Therefore, as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application in Step 2A Prong 2 or amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018).
Simply reciting specific limitations that narrow the abstract idea does not make an abstract idea non-abstract. 79 Fed. Reg. 74631; buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (2014); see SAP America at p. 12. As discussed in SAP America, no matter how much of an advance the claims recite, when “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm,” “[a]n advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.” Id. at p. 3.
Response to Arguments – Prior Art
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. However, Applicant’s remarks are moot in light of new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 (similarly 7, 8) recite, A processing method comprising:
collecting operation logs of terminals used by a plurality of staff members who perform work;
extracting a feature amount for each staff member from the collected operation logs; and
calculating a proficiency level of work for each staff member from the feature amount extracted for each staff member,
determining a productivity level for the each staff member based on the proficiency level, in which the proficiency level is based further on a quantified work accuracy and a work difficulty level coefficient, wherein
the calculating the proficiency level further comprises performing first weighting value that increases as time required for work increases or second weighting value that increases as an error rate, and the error rate represents a ratio of the number of times of use of a backspace/delete key to the total number of key inputs increases on the basis of work performed by the staff member when the operation log is collected, and wherein
allocation of the each staff member is determined based on the determined productivity level.
Analyzing under Step 2A, Prong 1:
The limitations regarding, …collecting operation logs of terminals used by a plurality of staff members who perform work; extracting a feature amount for each staff member from the collected operation logs; and calculating a proficiency level of work for each staff member from the feature amount extracted for each staff member, determining a productivity level for the each staff member based on the proficiency level, in which the proficiency level is based further on a quantified work accuracy and a work difficulty level coefficient, wherein the calculating the proficiency level further comprises performing first weighting value that increases as time required for work increases or second weighting value that increases as an error rate, and the error rate represents a ratio of the number of times of use of a backspace/delete key to the total number of key inputs increases on the basis of work performed by the staff member when the operation log is collected, and wherein allocation of the each staff member is determined based on the determined productivity level…, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, can include a human using their mind and using pen and paper to, …collecting operation logs of terminals used by a plurality of staff members who perform work; extracting a feature amount for each staff member from the collected operation logs; and calculating a proficiency level of work for each staff member from the feature amount extracted for each staff member, determining a productivity level for the each staff member based on the proficiency level, in which the proficiency level is based further on a quantified work accuracy and a work difficulty level coefficient, wherein the calculating the proficiency level further comprises performing first weighting value that increases as time required for work increases or second weighting value that increases as an error rate, and the error rate represents a ratio of the number of times of use of a backspace/delete key to the total number of key inputs increases on the basis of work performed by the staff member when the operation log is collected, and wherein allocation of the each staff member is determined based on the determined productivity level…; therefore, the claims are directed to a mental process.
Further, …collecting operation logs of terminals used by a plurality of staff members who perform work; extracting a feature amount for each staff member from the collected operation logs; and calculating a proficiency level of work for each staff member from the feature amount extracted for each staff member, determining a productivity level for the each staff member based on the proficiency level, in which the proficiency level is based further on a quantified work accuracy and a work difficulty level coefficient, wherein the calculating the proficiency level further comprises performing first weighting value that increases as time required for work increases or second weighting value that increases as an error rate, and the error rate represents a ratio of the number of times of use of a backspace/delete key to the total number of key inputs increases on the basis of work performed by the staff member when the operation log is collected, and wherein allocation of the each staff member is determined based on the determined productivity level…, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are human observing and evaluating human operating computer mouse and keyboard to determine human work proficiency productivity level and allocating and assigning human staff member to perform work based on human staff member productivity level, therefore it is, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Thus, the claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to a mental process, certain methods of organizing human activity, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
Analyzing under Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.
In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea identified under Step 2A, Prong 1, such as:
Claim 1, 7, 8: A processing device comprising a processor configured to execute, A computer-readable non-transitory recording medium storing computer-executable program instructions that when executed by a processor cause a computer to execute, terminals
Claim 3, 10, 13, 18: a screen of the terminal, user interface
Claim 9, 11, 16: through a network to an application
, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea, and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Further, these additional elements generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment, namely the environment of a computer.
Additionally, with respect to, “collecting…”, “extracting…”, “transmitting…”, “display…”, these elements do not add a meaningful limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are extra-solution activity, pre and post solution activity - i.e. data gathering – “collecting…”, “extracting…”, data output – “transmitting…”, “display…”
Analyzing under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because, as an order combination, the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it).
Additionally, as an order combination, the additional elements append the recited abstract idea to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field as individually evinced by the applicant’s own disclosure, as required by the Berkheimer Memo, in at least:
[0015] The communication unit 11 is a communication interface that transmits and receives various types of information to and from another device connected via a network or the like. For example, the communication unit 11 is implemented by a network interface card (NIC) or the like, and performs communication between the other device and the control unit 13 (described later) via a telecommunication line such as a local area network (LAN) or the Internet. For example, the communication unit 11 receives an operation log from the work PC of each staff via the network and outputs the operation log to the control unit 13. Moreover, the communication unit 11 outputs information indicating the proficiency level of each staff calculated by the control unit 13 to an external device via a network.
[0076] Each component of the processing device 10 is functionally conceptual, and does not necessarily have to be physically configured as illustrated. That is, specific forms of distribution and integration of the functions of the processing device 10 are not limited to the illustrated forms, and all or a part thereof can be functionally or physically distributed or integrated in any unit according to various loads, usage conditions, and the like.
[0077] Moreover, all or any of the processing performed in the processing device 10 may be implemented by a CPU, a graphics processing unit (GPU), and a program analyzed and executed by the CPU and the GPU. Furthermore, each processing performed in the processing device 10, a learning device 20, and a signal processing device 100 may be implemented as hardware by wired logic.
[0078] Moreover, among the pieces of processing described in the embodiments, all or some of the processing described as being automatically performed can be manually performed. Alternatively, all or some of the processing described as being performed manually can be automatically performed by a known method. In addition, the above-described and illustrated processing procedures, control procedures, specific names, and information including various data and parameters can be appropriately changed unless otherwise specified.
[0079] Fig. 23 is a diagram illustrating an example of a computer in which a program is executed to implement the processing device 10. A computer 1000 includes, for example, a memory 1010 and a CPU 1020. Moreover, the computer 1000 further includes a hard disk drive interface 1030, a disk drive interface 1040, a serial port interface 1050, a video adapter 1060, and a network interface 1070. These units are connected to each other by a bus 1080.
[0080] The memory 1010 includes a ROM 1011 and a RAM 1012. The ROM 1011 stores, for example, a boot program such as a basic input output system (BIOS). The hard disk drive interface 1030 is connected to a hard disk drive 1090. The disk drive interface 1040 is connected to a disk drive 1100. For example, a removable storage medium such as a magnetic disk or an optical disc is inserted into the disk drive 1100. The serial port interface 1050 is connected to, for example, a mouse 1110 and a keyboard 1120. The video adapter 1060 is connected to, for example, a display 1130.
[0081] The hard disk drive 1090 stores, for example, an operating system (OS) 1091, an application program 1092, a program module 1093, and program data 1094. That is, the program that defines each type of processing performed by the processing device 10 is implemented as the program module 1093 in which a code executable by the computer 1000 is described. The program module 1093 is stored in, for example, the hard disk drive 1090. For example, the program module 1093 for executing processing similar to the functional configurations in the processing device 10 is stored in the hard disk drive 1090. Note that the hard disk drive 1090 may be replaced with a solid state drive (SSD).
[0082] Moreover, setting data used in the processing of the above-described embodiment is stored, for example, in the memory 1010 or the hard disk drive 1090, as the program data 1094. Then, the CPU 1020 reads and executes the program module 1093 and the program data 1094 stored in the memory 1010 and the hard disk drive 1090 to the RAM 1012 as necessary.
[0083] Note that the program module 1093 and the program data 1094 are not limited to being stored in the hard disk drive 1090, and may be stored in, for example, a removable storage medium and read by the CPU 1020 via the disk drive 1100 or the like. Alternatively, the program module 1093 and the program data 1094 may be stored in another computer connected via a network (local area network (LAN), wide area network (WAN), or the like). Then, the program module 1093 and the program data 1094 may be read by the CPU 1020 from the other computer via the network interface 1070.
[0084] While the embodiment to which the invention made by the present inventors is applied has been described above, the present invention is not limited by the description and drawings included as a part of the disclosure of the present invention according to the present embodiment. That is, other embodiments, examples, operation techniques, and the like made by those skilled in the art and the like on the basis of the present embodiment are all included in the scope of the present invention.
Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Moreover, the remaining elements of dependent claims do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these remaining elements merely recite further abstract limitations that provide nothing more than simply a narrowing of the abstract idea recited in the independent claims.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components to “apply” the recited abstract idea, perform insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, 14-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by JP Patent Publication to JP2020077101A to YONEDA et al., (hereinafter referred to as “YONEDA”) in view of US Patent Publication to US20230135334A1 to TAKATSU et al., (hereinafter referred to as “TAKATSU”)
As per Claim 1, YONEDA teaches: (Currently Amended) A processing method comprising:
collecting operation logs of terminals used by a plurality of staff members who perform work; (in at least [0004] an information analysis device that analyzes the usage status of an application based on operation history information of a terminal. This device inputs operation history information, and manages application information regarding applications operable in the terminal and usage information of the input device of the terminal using a table. This device refers to the table, analyzes the usage status of the application from the input operation history information, and outputs the analysis result. [0006] a proficiency level screen display program that provides the user with an operating environment in which a user can always comfortably operate a computer regardless of the proficiency level of the user. This program acquires an operation history using an input means for giving an operation instruction to application software used by a computer for specific work or basic software for controlling execution of the application software. This program determines the user's proficiency level with respect to software based on the acquired operation history. Then, this program generates a proficiency level-specific screen corresponding to the proficiency level based on the determined user proficiency level, and displays the generated proficiency level-specific screen on the display. [0026] As illustrated in FIG. 2, a paste function (a function to paste the information stored in the clipboard to a selected location) and a cut function (store the selected information in the clipboard and delete the information from the copy source information). Similarly to the copy function, there are two types of input operations performed by the user, such as a function) such as a shortcut key and a mouse click. [0027] For example, when the detecting unit 11 detects an input operation in which the “Ctrl” key and the “C” key of the keyboard 22 are simultaneously pressed, the specifying unit 12 uses a shortcut key that realizes a copy function. Identify the input operation. The specifying unit 12 or, for example, when the detecting unit 11 detects an input operation that selects the copy function by left-clicking the mouse 23 from the pull-down menu displayed by right-clicking the mouse 23, Specify that the input operation is an input operation by clicking the mouse to realize the copy function. [0039] Further, in Expression 2, “wi” represents a coefficient (second weighting value) representing weighting for the work efficiency index fi. The coefficient wi is a value based on the ratio of users who use the function i (have a history of use), as shown in Expressions 3 and 4, for example. Since the server device 10 manages the work efficiency management information 160 in association with the user, the ratio of users who use the function i can be calculated. [0058] That is, the server device 10 according to the present embodiment has, for example, a record of input operations performed by the user by a shortcut key or a mouse click for each function such as a copy function, a paste function, and a cut function illustrated in FIG. Is managed to manage the work efficiency index fi for each function related to each user. As a result, the server device 10 according to the present embodiment can improve the accuracy of managing the user's proficiency level with respect to the function of the application.)
extracting a feature amount for each staff from the collected operation logs; and (in at least [0031] As illustrated in FIG. 3, the work efficiency management information 160 according to the present exemplary embodiment indicates, for each combination of a user and an application that the user causes the server device 10 to execute, the number of input operations by a shortcut key that realizes each function ( This is information for managing the (actual result) and the number of input operations by clicking the mouse. The generation unit 13 combines a user and an application based on a login ID (Identification) that each user inputs when logging in to the server device 10 and identification information that allows the user to identify an application to be executed by the server device 10. The performance information can be generated for each. The number of input operations by the shortcut key or the mouse click, which is indicated by the work efficiency management information 160, represents, for example, the number of times each input operation is performed in a predetermined period up to the present.)
calculating a proficiency level of work for each staff from the feature amount extracted for each staff member, wherein (in at least [0034] The calculation unit 14 illustrated in FIG. 1 calculates an index (work efficiency index fi) representing the work efficiency of the input operation by the user for each function, for example, using Expression 1 based on the performance information included in the work efficiency management information 160. Calculate using. fi=(aki+bmi)/(ki+mi) (Equation 1) However, in Equation 1, “i” is an integer representing a function number capable of identifying each function such as a copy function. In Expression 1, “ki” represents the number of input operations by the shortcut key that realizes the function i. In Expression 1, “mi” represents the number of input operations by clicking the mouse to realize the function i. In Expression 1, “+” is an operator that represents addition, and “/” is an operator that represents division. [0037] The calculation unit 14 also calculates a value (operation skill level F) obtained by accumulating the work efficiency index fi relating to an input operation by a certain user regarding a function with respect to a certain application, in association with the application and the user, for example, using Expression 2. .. That is, the operation skill level F represents the proficiency level of the user with respect to all the applications.)
determining a productivity level for the each staff member based on the proficiency level, in which the proficiency level is based further on a quantified work accuracy and a … coefficient, (in at least [0034] The calculation unit 14 illustrated in FIG. 1 calculates an index (work efficiency index fi) representing the work efficiency of the input operation by the user for each function, for example, using Expression 1 based on the performance information included in the work efficiency management information 160. Calculate using. fi=(aki+bmi)/(ki+mi) (Equation 1) However, in Equation 1, “i” is an integer representing a function number capable of identifying each function such as a copy function. In Expression 1, “ki” represents the number of input operations by the shortcut key that realizes the function i. In Expression 1, “mi” represents the number of input operations by clicking the mouse to realize the function i. In Expression 1, “+” is an operator that represents addition, and “/” is an operator that represents division. [0035] In Expression 1, “a” represents a coefficient (first weighting value) representing weighting with respect to the number of input operations ki, and “b” represents a coefficient (first weighting value) representing weighting with respect to the number of input operations mi. Represent In this embodiment, the coefficient a has a larger value than the coefficient b. The reason is that, in general, input operations using shortcut keys are simpler (required time is shorter) than input operations using mouse clicks, so work efficiency is higher than input operations using mouse clicks. Because it will be. That is, the work efficiency index fi has a larger value as the ratio of the number of input operations by the shortcut key to the number of input operations for realizing a certain function i is higher. [0037] The calculation unit 14 also calculates a value (operation skill level F) obtained by accumulating the work efficiency index fi relating to an input operation by a certain user regarding a function with respect to a certain application, in association with the application and the user, for example, using Expression 2. .. That is, the operation skill level F represents the proficiency level of the user with respect to all the applications. [0054] The server device 10 (input operation work efficiency management device) according to the present embodiment can improve the accuracy of managing the user's proficiency level with respect to the function of the application. The reason is that the server device 10 detects an input operation by the user, identifies a function to be realized according to the input operation, and shows a result of performing each of a plurality of different input operations having the same function.(i.e. quantified work accuracy) This is because the information is generated, and the index indicating the work efficiency of the input operation by the user regarding each function is calculated based on the performance information. [0056] An application generally has various functions, and a user causes the information processing apparatus to realize the function by performing an input operation for realizing the desired function. When the user has a high level of proficiency in the function, the user may perform an efficient input operation, and when the level of proficiency in the function is low, the user may perform a less efficient input operation. Then, the proficiency level of each function of an application for a certain user does not necessarily match the overall proficiency level of the application for that user. That is, with respect to a certain user, among a plurality of functions included in a certain application, a function with high proficiency and a function with low proficiency may coexist. Therefore, unless the user's proficiency level with respect to the function of the application is managed (recognized) in consideration of such a matter, the proficiency level management accuracy may decrease.)
the calculating the proficiency level further comprises performing first weighting value that increases as time required for work increases or second weighting value that increases as an error rate, and the error rate represents a ratio of the number of times of use of a backspace/delete key to the total number of key inputs increases on the basis of work performed by the staff member when the operation log is collected, and wherein (in at least [0034] The calculation unit 14 illustrated in FIG. 1 calculates an index (work efficiency index fi) representing the work efficiency of the input operation by the user for each function, for example, using Expression 1 based on the performance information included in the work efficiency management information 160. Calculate using. fi=(aki+bmi)/(ki+mi) (Equation 1) However, in Equation 1, “i” is an integer representing a function number capable of identifying each function such as a copy function. In Expression 1, “ki” represents the number of input operations by the shortcut key that realizes the function i. In Expression 1, “mi” represents the number of input operations by clicking the mouse to realize the function i. In Expression 1, “+” is an operator that represents addition, and “/” is an operator that represents division. [0035] In Expression 1, “a” represents a coefficient (first weighting value) representing weighting with respect to the number of input operations ki, and “b” represents a coefficient (first weighting value) representing weighting with respect to the number of input operations mi. Represent In this embodiment, the coefficient a has a larger value than the coefficient b. The reason is that, in general, input operations using shortcut keys are simpler (required time is shorter) than input operations using mouse clicks, so work efficiency is higher than input operations using mouse clicks. Because it will be. That is, the work efficiency index fi has a larger value as the ratio of the number of input operations by the shortcut key to the number of input operations for realizing a certain function i is higher. [0041] The calculation unit 14 according to the present embodiment, as shown in Expressions 2 to 4, in the calculation of the operation skill level F, the work efficiency regarding the function i satisfying that the ratio of users to use is 10% or less or 90% or more. The index fi is weighted twice as much as the work efficiency index fi for the other functions i. This is a feature i that is used by the majority of users but not used by some minorities, and vice versa, but not used by the majority of users but some minorities. The function i used by the user is considered to be highly important in the calculation of the operation skill level F. [0043] According to the work efficiency management information 160 illustrated in FIG. 3, the calculation unit 14 calculates, for example, the operation skill level F of the application AP1 of the user 1 as “3”, and the operation skill level F of the application AP2 of the user 1 is calculated. It is calculated as “2” and the operation skill level F of the application AP1 of the user 2 is calculated as “5”. That is, in the work using the application AP2 by the user 1, the number of the functions i for which the input operation by the shortcut key is performed is small, and therefore the calculation unit 14 calculates the operation skill level F of the application AP2 of the user 1 to be low. On the other hand, in the work using the application AP1 by the user 2, since the number of the functions i for which the input operation is performed by the shortcut key is large, the calculation unit 14 calculates the operation skill level F regarding the application AP1 of the user 2 to be high. To do.)
… on the determined productivity level. (in at least [0037] The calculation unit 14 also calculates a value (operation skill level F) obtained by accumulating the work efficiency index fi relating to an input operation by a certain user regarding a function with respect to a certain application, in association with the application and the user, for example, using Expression 2. .. That is, the operation skill level F represents the proficiency level of the user with respect to all the applications. [0053] The calculation unit 14 calculates the operation skill level F of the user based on the work efficiency management information 160, and reflects the calculated operation skill level F in the work efficiency management information 160 (step S105). The display control unit 15 displays the value of the operation skill level F on the display screen 21 based on the work efficiency management information 160, and performs the input operation by the shortcut key for the function i in which the value of the work efficiency index fi satisfies the condition. The content is displayed (step S106), and the process returns to step S101. [0054] The server device 10 (input operation work efficiency management device) according to the present embodiment can improve the accuracy of managing the user's proficiency level with respect to the function of the application. The reason is that the server device 10 detects an input operation by the user, identifies a function to be realized according to the input operation, and shows a result of performing each of a plurality of different input operations having the same function. This is because the information is generated, and the index indicating the work efficiency of the input operation by the user regarding each function is calculated based on the performance information.)
Although implied, YONEDA does not expressly disclose the following limitations, which however, are taught by TAKATSU,
…work difficulty level coefficient…(in at least [0080] FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating an example of a task difficulty level table 1231 that is stored in the task difficulty level table storage unit 123. The task difficulty level table 1231 is a table in which task difficulty level values are recorded as assignment cost values, each task difficulty level value indicating the difficulty level of an assignment target task. The larger the task difficulty level value is, the higher the task difficulty level is. The difficulty level table generation unit 113 sets, in step S11, all of the task difficulty level values in the task difficulty level table 1231 stored in the task difficulty level table storage unit 123 to “1”, as shown in FIG. 5.)
allocation of the each staff member is determined based on the … (in at least [0082] FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating an example of a first assignment table 1211, and examples of the skill table 1221, a highest difficulty level task bit table 1222, and a skill label table 1223 that are updated based on the first assignment table 1211. [0083] The skill table generation unit 112 regards the tasks assigned to the workers in the assignment table 1211 as having been experienced, and adds “1” to the skill values of the workers in the skill table 1221. Thus, due to the addition of “1”, the skill value of the worker A with respect to the task A, the skill value of the worker A with respect to the task B, the skill value of the worker B with respect to the task C, the skill value of the worker C with respect to the task D, the skill value of the worker A with respect to the task E, the skill value of the worker D with respect to the task F, and the skill value of the worker D with respect to the task G are “2”.)
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of YONEDA, as taught by TAKATSU above, with a reasonable expectation of success if arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to the teachings of YONEDA with the motivation of, …generating the assignment cost values…a cost value calculation method, and a cost value calculation program that enable to calculate multiple types of assignment cost values for realizing realistic task assignment…., as recited in TAKATSU.
As per Claim 2, YONEDA teaches: (Currently Amended) The processing method according to claim 1, wherein
the feature amount includes a plurality of types, (in at least [0031] As illustrated in FIG. 3, the work efficiency management information 160 according to the present exemplary embodiment indicates, for each combination of a user and an application that the user causes the server device 10 to execute, the number of input operations by a shortcut key that realizes each function ( This is information for managing the (actual result) and the number of input operations by clicking the mouse. The generation unit 13 combines a user and an application based on a login ID (Identification) that each user inputs when logging in to the server device 10 and identification information that allows the user to identify an application to be executed by the server device 10. The performance information can be generated for each. The number of input operations by the shortcut key or the mouse click, which is indicated by the work efficiency management information 160, represents, for example, the number of times each input operation is performed in a predetermined period up to the present.)
the feature amount includes the number of times of use of an alt key on a keyboard of the terminal, the number of times of use of a mouse connected to the terminal, and the number of times of a paste operation among operations in the terminal, which are acquired from the operation log, and (in at least [0031] As illustrated in FIG. 3, the work efficiency management information 160 according to the present exemplary embodiment indicates, for each combination of a user and an application that the user causes the server device 10 to execute, the number of input operations by a shortcut key that realizes each function ( This is information for managing the (actual result) and the number of input operations by clicking the mouse. The generation unit 13 combines a user and an application based on a login ID (Identification) that each user inputs when logging in to the server device 10 and identification information that allows the user to identify an application to be executed by the server device 10. The performance information can be generated for each. The number of input operations by the shortcut key or the mouse click, which is indicated by the work efficiency management information 160, represents, for example, the number of times each input operation is performed in a predetermined period up to the present.)
the calculating further comprises calculating the proficiency level for each staff member on the basis of a first relationship in which the proficiency level increases as the number of times of use of the alt key increases, a second relationship in which the proficiency level increases as the number of times of use of the mouse decreases, and a third relationship in which the proficiency level increases as the number of times of the paste operation decreases. (in at least [0031] As illustrated in FIG. 3, the work efficiency management information 160 according to the present exemplary embodiment indicates, for each combination of a user and an application that the user causes the server device 10 to execute, the number of input operations by a shortcut key that realizes each function ( This is information for managing the (actual result) and the number of input operations by clicking the mouse. The generation unit 13 combines a user and an application based on a login ID (Identification) that each user inputs when logging in to the server device 10 and identification information that allows the user to identify an application to be executed by the server device 10. The performance information can be generated for each. The number of input operations by the shortcut key or the mouse click, which is indicated by the work efficiency management information 160, represents, for example, the number of times each input operation is performed in a predetermined period up to the present. [0034] The calculation unit 14 illustrated in FIG. 1 calculates an index (work efficiency index fi) representing the work efficiency of the input operation by the user for each function, for example, using Expression 1 based on the performance information included in the work efficiency management information 160. Calculate using. fi=(aki+bmi)/(ki+mi) (Equation 1) However, in Equation 1, “i” is an integer representing a function number capable of identifying each function such as a copy function. In Expression 1, “ki” represents the number of input operations by the shortcut key that realizes the function i. In Expression 1, “mi” represents the number of input operations by clicking the mouse to realize the function i. In Expression 1, “+” is an operator that represents addition, and “/” is an operator that represents division. [0035] In Expression 1, “a” represents a coefficient (first weighting value) representing weighting with respect to the number of input operations ki, and “b” represents a coefficient (first weighting value) representing weighting with respect to the number of input operations mi. Represent In this embodiment, the coefficient a has a larger value than the coefficient b. The reason is that, in general, input operations using shortcut keys are simpler (required time is shorter) than input operations using mouse clicks, so work efficiency is higher than input operations using mouse clicks. Because it will be. That is, the work efficiency index fi has a larger value as the ratio of the number of input operations by the shortcut key to the number of input operations for realizing a certain function i is higher. [0036] The work efficiency management information 160 illustrated in FIG. 3 represents the result of the calculation unit 14 calculating the work efficiency index fi with “a=5” and “b=2” as an example. However, the values of the coefficient a and the coefficient b are not limited as long as the coefficient a is larger than the coefficient b. [0037] The calculation unit 14 also calculates a value (operation skill level F) obtained by accumulating the work efficiency index fi relating to an input operation by a certain user regarding a function with respect to a certain application, in association with the application and the user, for example, using Expression 2. .. That is, the operation skill level F represents the proficiency level of the user with respect to all the applications. [0038] However, in Expression 2, “n” represents the number of functions i included in the application (which can be used by the user while the server device 10 is executing the application). It should be noted that the functions included in the application but not used by any user may be excluded from the target n functions in the calculation of the operation skill level F. [0039] Further, in Expression 2, “wi” represents a coefficient (second weighting value) representing weighting for the work efficiency index fi. The coefficient wi is a value based on the ratio of users who use the function i (have a history of use), as shown in Expressions 3 and 4, for example. Since the server device 10 manages the work efficiency management information 160 in association with the user, the ratio of users who use the function i can be calculated. [0040] However, in Expression 3, “w” is a value that satisfies Expression 4. 2wc+w(n−c)=1 (Equation 4) However, in Equation 4, “c” is a function i satisfying that the ratio of users to use is 10% or less or 90% or more. Represents a number. It should be noted that Expression 4 represents that the sum of the coefficients wi for all functions i is set to "1". [0041] The calculation unit 14 according to the present embodiment, as shown in Expressions 2 to 4, in the calculation of the operation skill level F, the work efficiency regarding the function i satisfying that the ratio of users to use is 10% or less or 90% or more. The index fi is weighted twice as much as the work efficiency index fi for the other functions i. This is a feature i that is used by the majority of users but not used by some minorities, and vice versa, but not used by the majority of users but some minorities. The function i used by the user is considered to be highly important in the calculation of the operation skill level F. [0042] In Expressions 2 and 3, the condition regarding the ratio of users who use the function i used to determine the value of the coefficient wi is not limited to 10% or less or 90% or more described above. The coefficient wi may be a value based on a criterion different from the ratio of users who use the function i. Alternatively, for all functions i, the coefficient wi may be “1” (that is, the work efficiency index fi is not weighted). [0043] According to the work efficiency management information 160 illustrated in FIG. 3, the calculation unit 14 calculates, for example, the operation skill level F of the application AP1 of the user 1 as “3”, and the operation skill level F of the application AP2 of the user 1 is calculated. It is calculated as “2” and the operation skill level F of the application AP1 of the user 2 is calculated as “5”. That is, in the work using the application AP2 by the user 1, the number of the functions i for which the input operation by the shortcut key is performed is small, and therefore the calculation unit 14 calculates the operation skill level F of the application AP2 of the user 1 to be low. On the other hand, in the work using the application AP1 by the user 2, since the number of the functions i for which the input operation is performed by the shortcut key is large, the calculation unit 14 calculates the operation skill level F regarding the application AP1 of the user 2 to be high. To do. [0047] FIG. 4A is a diagram exemplifying an execution screen of the application AP1 executed by the user 1 displayed on the display screen 21 by the display control unit 15. The display control unit 15 displays the content of the input operation by the shortcut key regarding the paste function and the cut function, which are the functions i satisfying the conditions. However, in the example shown in FIGS. 4A and 4B, the condition regarding the function i described above is that the value of the work efficiency index fi is less than 3.0. That is, in the work efficiency management information 160 illustrated in FIG. 3, the display control unit 15 displays the contents of the input operation by the shortcut key regarding the pasting function and the cut function in which the value of the work efficiency index fi is 2.6. However, regarding the copy function in which the value of the work efficiency index fi is 3.0, the content of the input operation by the shortcut key is not displayed.)
As per Claim 4, YONEDA teaches: (Currently Amended) The processing method according to claim 1, wherein
the feature amount includes a plurality of types, and (in at least [0031] As illustrated in FIG. 3, the work efficiency management information 160 according to the present exemplary embodiment indicates, for each combination of a user and an application that the user causes the server device 10 to execute, the number of input operations by a shortcut key that realizes each function ( This is information for managing the (actual result) and the number of input operations by clicking the mouse. The generation unit 13 combines a user and an application based on a login ID (Identification) that each user inputs when logging in to the server device 10 and identification information that allows the user to identify an application to be executed by the server device 10. The performance information can be generated for each. The number of input operations by the shortcut key or the mouse click, which is indicated by the work efficiency management information 160, represents, for example, the number of times each input operation is performed in a predetermined period up to the present.)
the calculating further comprises calculating a feature amount of a type corresponding to a work environment of the staff member is selected from the feature amount, and the proficiency level for each staff member on the basis of the feature amount of the selected type. (in at least [0031] As illustrated in FIG. 3, the work efficiency management information 160 according to the present exemplary embodiment indicates, for each combination of a user and an application that the user causes the server device 10 to execute, the number of input operations by a shortcut key that realizes each function ( This is information for managing the (actual result) and the number of input operations by clicking the mouse. The generation unit 13 combines a user and an application based on a login ID (Identification) that each user inputs when logging in to the server device 10 and identification information that allows the user to identify an application to be executed by the server device 10. The performance information can be generated for each. The number of input operations by the shortcut key or the mouse click, which is indicated by the work efficiency management information 160, represents, for example, the number of times each input operation is performed in a predetermined period up to the present.)
As per Claim 5, YONEDA teaches: (Currently Amended) The processing method according to claim 1,wherein the calculating further comprises
calculating the proficiency level for each staff member using a model, and the model is trained based on a relationship between a feature amount of a type according to a work environment and a proficiency level for each work environment of the staff member. (in at least [0034] The calculation unit 14 illustrated in FIG. 1 calculates an index (work efficiency index fi) representing the work efficiency of the input operation by the user for each function, for example, using Expression 1 based on the performance information included in the work efficiency management information 160. Calculate using. fi=(aki+bmi)/(ki+mi) (Equation 1) However, in Equation 1, “i” is an integer representing a function number capable of identifying each function such as a copy function. In Expression 1, “ki” represents the number of input operations by the shortcut key that realizes the function i. In Expression 1, “mi” represents the number of input operations by clicking the mouse to realize the function i. In Expression 1, “+” is an operator that represents addition, and “/” is an operator that represents division. [0035] In Expression 1, “a” represents a coefficient (first weighting value) representing weighting with respect to the number of input operations ki, and “b” represents a coefficient (first weighting value) representing weighting with respect to the number of input operations mi. Represent In this embodiment, the coefficient a has a larger value than the coefficient b. The reason is that, in general, input operations using shortcut keys are simpler (required time is shorter) than input operations using mouse clicks, so work efficiency is higher than input operations using mouse clicks. Because it will be. That is, the work efficiency index fi has a larger value as the ratio of the number of input operations by the shortcut key to the number of input operations for realizing a certain function i is higher. [0036] The work efficiency management information 160 illustrated in FIG. 3 represents the result of the calculation unit 14 calculating the work efficiency index fi with “a=5” and “b=2” as an example. However, the values of the coefficient a and the coefficient b are not limited as long as the coefficient a is larger than the coefficient b. [0037] The calculation unit 14 also calculates a value (operation skill level F) obtained by accumulating the work efficiency index fi relating to an input operation by a certain user regarding a function with respect to a certain application, in association with the application and the user, for example, using Expression 2. .. That is, the operation skill level F represents the proficiency level of the user with respect to all the applications. [0038] However, in Expression 2, “n” represents the number of functions i included in the application (which can be used by the user while the server device 10 is executing the application). It should be noted that the functions included in the application but not used by any user may be excluded from the target n functions in the calculation of the operation skill level F. [0039] Further, in Expression 2, “wi” represents a coefficient (second weighting value) representing weighting for the work efficiency index fi. The coefficient wi is a value based on the ratio of users who use the function i (have a history of use), as shown in Expressions 3 and 4, for example. Since the server device 10 manages the work efficiency management information 160 in association with the user, the ratio of users who use the function i can be calculated. [0040] However, in Expression 3, “w” is a value that satisfies Expression 4. 2wc+w(n−c)=1 (Equation 4) However, in Equation 4, “c” is a function i satisfying that the ratio of users to use is 10% or less or 90% or more. Represents a number. It should be noted that Expression 4 represents that the sum of the coefficients wi for all functions i is set to "1". [0041] The calculation unit 14 according to the present embodiment, as shown in Expressions 2 to 4, in the calculation of the operation skill level F, the work efficiency regarding the function i satisfying that the ratio of users to use is 10% or less or 90% or more. The index fi is weighted twice as much as the work efficiency index fi for the other functions i. This is a feature i that is used by the majority of users but not used by some minorities, and vice versa, but not used by the majority of users but some minorities. The function i used by the user is considered to be highly important in the calculation of the operation skill level F. [0042] In Expressions 2 and 3, the condition regarding the ratio of users who use the function i used to determine the value of the coefficient wi is not limited to 10% or less or 90% or more described above. The coefficient wi may be a value based on a criterion different from the ratio of users who use the function i. Alternatively, for all functions i, the coefficient wi may be “1” (that is, the work efficiency index fi is not weighted). [0043] According to the work efficiency management information 160 illustrated in FIG. 3, the calculation unit 14 calculates, for example, the operation skill level F of the application AP1 of the user 1 as “3”, and the operation skill level F of the application AP2 of the user 1 is calculated. It is calculated as “2” and the operation skill level F of the application AP1 of the user 2 is calculated as “5”. That is, in the work using the application AP2 by the user 1, the number of the functions i for which the input operation by the shortcut key is performed is small, and therefore the calculation unit 14 calculates the operation skill level F of the application AP2 of the user 1 to be low. On the other hand, in the work using the application AP1 by the user 2, since the number of the functions i for which the input operation is performed by the shortcut key is large, the calculation unit 14 calculates the operation skill level F regarding the application AP1 of the user 2 to be high. To do.)
As per Claim 6, YONEDA teaches: (Currently Amended) The processing method according to claim 1,
wherein the first weighting value indicates a value obtained, on the basis of a plurality of operation logs of a plurality of staff members, at a predetermined timing for each work environment of the staff member. (in at least [0031] As illustrated in FIG. 3, the work efficiency management information 160 according to the present exemplary embodiment indicates, for each combination of a user and an application that the user causes the server device 10 to execute, the number of input operations by a shortcut key that realizes each function ( This is information for managing the (actual result) and the number of input operations by clicking the mouse. The generation unit 13 combines a user and an application based on a login ID (Identification) that each user inputs when logging in to the server device 10 and identification information that allows the user to identify an application to be executed by the server device 10. The performance information can be generated for each. The number of input operations by the shortcut key or the mouse click, which is indicated by the work efficiency management information 160, represents, for example, the number of times each input operation is performed in a predetermined period up to the present.)
As per Claim 9, YONEDA teaches: (Currently Amended) The processing method according to claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting the calculated proficiency level of work for a staff member through a network to an application configured to display the calculated proficiency level. (in at least [0016] FIG. 1 is a block diagram conceptually showing the structure of a work efficiency management system 1 for input operation according to a first embodiment of the present invention. The input operation work efficiency management system 1 roughly includes a server device 10 and one or more client terminal devices 20. The server device 10 and the client terminal device 20 are communicably connected via a communication network. [0017] The client terminal device 20 is, for example, an information processing device such as a personal computer, and includes a display screen 21, a keyboard 22, and a mouse 23. A user (user) using the server device 10 causes the server device 10 to execute a target application by performing an input operation using the keyboard 22 and the mouse 23 while referring to the display screen 21. [0018] The server device 10 has the hardware configuration shown in FIG. 7 described later, and executes the application instructed by the user performing the input operation described above. The server device 10 according to the present embodiment also operates as a work efficiency management device for input operations that manages work efficiency related to user input operations. In the present embodiment, hereinafter, the operation of the server device 10 that operates as a work efficiency management device for input operation will be described. [0031] As illustrated in FIG. 3, the work efficiency management information 160 according to the present exemplary embodiment indicates, for each combination of a user and an application that the user causes the server device 10 to execute, the number of input operations by a shortcut key that realizes each function ( This is information for managing the (actual result) and the number of input operations by clicking the mouse. The generation unit 13 combines a user and an application based on a login ID (Identification) that each user inputs when logging in to the server device 10 and identification information that allows the user to identify an application to be executed by the server device 10. The performance information can be generated for each. The number of input operations by the shortcut key or the mouse click, which is indicated by the work efficiency management information 160, represents, for example, the number of times each input operation is performed in a predetermined period up to the present.)
As per Claim 7, 11-12, 14-15 and 8, 16-17, 19-20 for A processing device (see at least YONEDA [0014]) and A computer-readable non-transitory recording medium (see at least YONEDA [0012]), substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1-2, 4-5, 9 and are rejected based on the same reasoning and rationale.
Claims 3, 10, 13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by JP Patent Publication to JP2020077101A to YONEDA et al., (hereinafter referred to as “YONEDA”) in view of US Patent Publication to US20230135334A1 to TAKATSU et al., (hereinafter referred to as “TAKATSU”) in view of US Patent Publication to US20210279689A1 to TAKEUCHI, (hereinafter referred to as “TAKEUCHI”)
As per Claim 3, YONEDA teaches: (Currently Amended) The processing method according to claim 1, where in the collecting further comprises
acquiring, as the operation logs, an input form displayed on a screen of the terminal and a … of the input form in a user interface …. (in at least [0026] As illustrated in FIG. 2, a paste function (a function to paste the information stored in the clipboard to a selected location) and a cut function (store the selected information in the clipboard and delete the information from the copy source information). Similarly to the copy function, there are two types of input operations performed by the user, such as a function) such as a shortcut key and a mouse click. [0027] For example, when the detecting unit 11 detects an input operation in which the “Ctrl” key and the “C” key of the keyboard 22 are simultaneously pressed, the specifying unit 12 uses a shortcut key that realizes a copy function. Identify the input operation. The specifying unit 12 or, for example, when the detecting unit 11 detects an input operation that selects the copy function by left-clicking the mouse 23 from the pull-down menu displayed by right-clicking the mouse 23, Specify that the input operation is an input operation by clicking the mouse to realize the copy function. [0031] As illustrated in FIG. 3, the work efficiency management information 160 according to the present exemplary embodiment indicates, for each combination of a user and an application that the user causes the server device 10 to execute, the number of input operations by a shortcut key that realizes each function ( This is information for managing the (actual result) and the number of input operations by clicking the mouse. The generation unit 13 combines a user and an application based on a login ID (Identification) that each user inputs when logging in to the server device 10 and identification information that allows the user to identify an application to be executed by the server device 10. The performance information can be generated for each. The number of input operations by the shortcut key or the mouse click, which is indicated by the work efficiency management information 160, represents, for example, the number of times each input operation is performed in a predetermined period up to the present.)
Although implied, YONEDA in view of TAKATSU does not expressly disclose the following limitations, which however, are taught by TAKEUCHI,
… a direct ancestor of the input form in a user interface tree… (in at least [0085] FIG. 9 shows an example of a screen displayed on the monitor of the operation terminal 14 in accordance with the processing of Steps 108 to 112. More specifically, the upper part of FIG. 9 shows the surrounding trees that the person in charge of operation displayed on the screen after registering the above “Actuator”. The person in charge of operation shows this screen to the person in charge of recruitment in the company to confirm whether or not a useful node exists in the dictionary nodes (66) arranged along with “Actuator” below “Sensor/Actuator”. [0092] the act of searching for “Control Lever” and confirming the result corresponds to the processing of Step 102, Step 104 and Step 114 in the flowchart shown in FIG. 6. In addition, the act of requesting the management server 10 to add “Control Lever” corresponds to Step 118. As shown in FIG. 6, the processing described above is repeatedly performed until registration of all dictionary nodes that correspond to all the capabilities necessary for the project is completed (Step 120). Hereinafter, the dictionary node thus registered is referred to as a “desire node”. [0096] FIG. 12 is a diagram for describing a method of calculating a deficiency score by comparing a technical tree 80 and a skill tree 82. The technical tree 80 is configured by applying desire nodes 84 registered based on the necessary capability condition to the tree structure of the matching dictionary. On the other hand, the skill tree 82 is configured by applying possession nodes 86 registered based on the capability possessed by the existing human resource to the tree structure of the matching dictionary.)
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of YONEDA in view of TAKATSU, as taught by TAKEUCHI above, with a reasonable expectation of success if arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to the teachings of YONEDA in view of TAKATSU with the motivation of, … to provide a deficient capability extraction device that can objectively extract the deficient capability of the target human resource with respect to the required capability.…by educating the existing human resource, the deficient capability can be efficiently supplemented.… training program for the target human resource is created by using such deficient capability information, it is possible to efficiently develop the deficient capability of the target human resource. For this reason, according to the present embodiment, it is possible not only to efficiently train the target human resource but also to significantly reduce the workload for the training….., as recited in TAKEUCHI.
As per Claim 10, YONEDA teaches: (Currently Amended) The processing method according to claim 2, wherein the collecting further comprises
acquiring, as the operation logs, an input form displayed on a screen of the terminal and a …. of the input form in a user interface …. (in at least [0026] As illustrated in FIG. 2, a paste function (a function to paste the information stored in the clipboard to a selected location) and a cut function (store the selected information in the clipboard and delete the information from the copy source information). Similarly to the copy function, there are two types of input operations performed by the user, such as a function) such as a shortcut key and a mouse click. [0027] For example, when the detecting unit 11 detects an input operation in which the “Ctrl” key and the “C” key of the keyboard 22 are simultaneously pressed, the specifying unit 12 uses a shortcut key that realizes a copy function. Identify the input operation. The specifying unit 12 or, for example, when the detecting unit 11 detects an input operation that selects the copy function by left-clicking the mouse 23 from the pull-down menu displayed by right-clicking the mouse 23, Specify that the input operation is an input operation by clicking the mouse to realize the copy function. [0031] As illustrated in FIG. 3, the work efficiency management information 160 according to the present exemplary embodiment indicates, for each combination of a user and an application that the user causes the server device 10 to execute, the number of input operations by a shortcut key that realizes each function ( This is information for managing the (actual result) and the number of input operations by clicking the mouse. The generation unit 13 combines a user and an application based on a login ID (Identification) that each user inputs when logging in to the server device 10 and identification information that allows the user to identify an application to be executed by the server device 10. The performance information can be generated for each. The number of input operations by the shortcut key or the mouse click, which is indicated by the work efficiency management information 160, represents, for example, the number of times each input operation is performed in a predetermined period up to the present.)
Although implied, YONEDA in view of TAKATSU does not expressly disclose the following limitations, which however, are taught by TAKEUCHI,
…a direct ancestor of the input form in a user interface tree… (in at least [0085] FIG. 9 shows an example of a screen displayed on the monitor of the operation terminal 14 in accordance with the processing of Steps 108 to 112. More specifically, the upper part of FIG. 9 shows the surrounding trees that the person in charge of operation displayed on the screen after registering the above “Actuator”. The person in charge of operation shows this screen to the person in charge of recruitment in the company to confirm whether or not a useful node exists in the dictionary nodes (66) arranged along with “Actuator” below “Sensor/Actuator”. [0092] the act of searching for “Control Lever” and confirming the result corresponds to the processing of Step 102, Step 104 and Step 114 in the flowchart shown in FIG. 6. In addition, the act of requesting the management server 10 to add “Control Lever” corresponds to Step 118. As shown in FIG. 6, the processing described above is repeatedly performed until registration of all dictionary nodes that correspond to all the capabilities necessary for the project is completed (Step 120). Hereinafter, the dictionary node thus registered is referred to as a “desire node”. [0096] FIG. 12 is a diagram for describing a method of calculating a deficiency score by comparing a technical tree 80 and a skill tree 82. The technical tree 80 is configured by applying desire nodes 84 registered based on the necessary capability condition to the tree structure of the matching dictionary. On the other hand, the skill tree 82 is configured by applying possession nodes 86 registered based on the capability possessed by the existing human resource to the tree structure of the matching dictionary.)
The reason and rationale to combine YONEDA, TAKATSU, TAKEUCHI is the same as recited above.
As per Claim 13 and 18 for A processing device (see at least YONEDA [0014]) and A computer-readable non-transitory recording medium (see at least YONEDA [0012]), substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 3 and are rejected based on the same reasoning and rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PO HAN MAX LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3821. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 8:00 am - 7:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PO HAN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights