DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/10/26 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This communication is in response to communications received on 6/10/26. Claim(s) 1, 6, 9, 11-14, 18, and 20 is/are amended, claim(s) none is/are cancelled, claim(s) 21-22 is/are new, and applicant does not provide any information on where support for the amendments can be found in the instant specification as there are no amendments. Therefore, Claims 1, 3-14, and 16-22 is/are pending and have been addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 6/10/26, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 112 for claim(s) 1, 3-14, and 16-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. The Examiner respectfully withdraws rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 1, 3-14, and 16-20 based on further searching of specification beyond applicant’s remarks.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 6/10/26, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 1, 3-14, and 16-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 101 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 8-10.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claims here are not like those the Federal Circuit (Court) found patent eligible in Core Wireless because the claims here are not directed to an improved user interface for computing devices such as a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices. For example the claims here do not require “restraining the type of data that can be displayed in the summary window or that the summary window “is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state,” a requirement that the device applications exist in a particular state.” The claims here do not disclose “limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer.”
Applicant is relying on 2106.05(d) “well understood, routine, and conventional” however Examiner is relying on 2106.05(f) “apply it.” Examiner relied on “apply it” because of item (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process of 2106.05(f).
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 6/10/26, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 102 for claim(s) 1, 3-14, and 16-20 have been fully and are persuasive however but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 103 rejection(s) below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-14, and 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as noted below.
The limitation(s) below for representative claim(s) 1 and 14 that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to dynamic and interactive skills identification.
Step 1: The claim(s) as drafted, is/are a process (claim(s) 1-13 recites a series of steps) and system (claim(s) 14-20 recites a series of components).
Step 2A – Prong 1: The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) (emphasis added):
Claim 1: determining a plurality of career skills;
displaying a spider web graph comprising a plurality of radial axes corresponding to the plurality of career skills, each radial axis of the plurality of radial axes comprising a plurality of skill level indications;
determining a plurality of user skillsets corresponding to the plurality of career skills, each user skillset of the plurality of user skillsets comprising a career skill and a user skill level indication of the career skill;
displaying the plurality of user skillsets on the spider web graph, each user skillset of the plurality of user skillsets corresponding to a respective radial axis of the plurality of radial axes and a skill level indication of the plurality of skill level indications associated with the respective radial axis;
receiving a first user input to determine a plurality of updated skillsets; and
in response to the first user input, dynamically updating the to display the plurality of updated skillsets on the spider web graph,
wherein the dynamically updating the graphical user interface comprises simultaneously displaying the plurality of user skillsets and the plurality of updated skillsets on the spider web graph, each updated skillset of the plurality of updated skillsets corresponding to a respective radial axis of the plurality of radial axes and an updated skill level indication of the plurality of skill level indications associated with the respective radial axis,
wherein the displayed plurality of user skillsets are skillsets of a first user, and
wherein the displayed plurality of updated skillsets are skillsets of the first user.
Claim(s) 14: same analysis as claim(s) 1.
Dependent claims 3-13 and 16-20 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 1 and 14 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s): .
The identified limitations of the independent and dependent claims above fall well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts of:
a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with dynamic and interactive skills identification for a business.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include graphical user interface (claim(s) 1, 14) a system comprising: a memory, a processor (claim(s) 14), computer (claim(s) 11), processor (claim(s) 15-17).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 fails to describe:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to (as additionally noted by instant specification [0024]) invoked as a tool and/or general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to (as additionally noted by instant specification [0024]) invoked as a tool and/or a general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and thus similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as set forth above (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
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.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claim(s) 1, 3-11, 14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman et al. (US 2016/0371652 A1) in view of Chart.js published May 28, 2017 (reference U on the Notice of References Cited).
Regarding claim 1 and 14 (currently amended), Herman teaches a method for user skill identification on a graphical user interface, the method comprising {a system for user skill identification on a graphical user interface, comprising: a memory; and a processor in communication with the memory, the processor configured to: - claim 14}:
determining a plurality of career skills [see at least Fig. 1 and [0033, 0038, 0041-0042] “information environment 100 includes information system 102. … As depicted, information system 102 includes radar chart system 108 and database 110. Radar chart system 108 and database 110 may be implemented in computer system 112. … As depicted, display system 118 is a hardware system and includes one or more display devices on which graphical user interface 116 may be displayed. Operator 120 is a person who may interact with graphical user interface 116 through user input 122 generated by user input device 124 in computer system 112.”;
[0056] “With reference next to FIG. 2, an illustration of a block diagram of identifying a balance of skills”;
[0122-0124] “The process begins by identifying skills for a group of people (operation 900). Next, the process displays the skills identified on a radar chart in a graphical user interface in a display system (operation 902). The radar chart has axes extending from a common origin in which a skill in skills for a person in the group of people is displayed on an axis in the axes corresponding to the skill.
The process identifies a balance of skills for the group of people (operation 904). The balance of skills has desired values for skills needed for the group of people. The balance of skills for the group of people is displayed on the radar chart (operation 906) with the process terminating thereafter.
The process illustrated in this example enables analyzing the skills through the balance of skills displayed in the radar chart. With this analysis, real-world operations may be performed for organization 106. These real-world operations may include hiring a person, forming a team, identifying continuing education classes for people, and other operations for organization 106.”];
displaying a spider web graph comprising a plurality of radial axes corresponding to the plurality of career skills, each radial axis of the plurality of radial axes comprising a plurality of skill level indications [see at least Fig. 5 and [0099] “For example, radar chart system 108 may be used to select people 136 for team 207 for radar chart 202 and display balance of skills 200 on radar chart 202 all at once.”];
determining a plurality of user skillsets corresponding to the plurality of career skills, each user skillset of the plurality of user skillsets comprising a career skill and a user skill level indication of the career skill [see at least [0126-0128] “The process begins by identifying values for skills for a group of people (operation 1000). Next, the process identifies a balance of skills for the group of people that meets a policy for desired values for the skills (operation 1002) with the process terminating thereafter. For example, if the policy in operation 1002 is that the group of people has the desired value of 5 for the skills, the balance of skills is values for the skills that meet the desired value of 5 when the balance of skills is added to the group of people.
As another example, the policy in operation 1002 may be that the group of people has average values for the skills that do not go outside a range of values. A range of values is the values between two values. For example, when the highest value of skill is 10, the range of values for the policy may be for maintaining an average of between 3 and 10 for the average values for the skills.
As still another example, the policy in operation 1002 may be that the group of people has average values for the skills that meet a list of values selected for the skills. For example, an operator may have selected the list of values for the average values for the policy.”];
displaying the plurality of user skillsets on the spider web graph, each user skillset of the plurality of user skillsets corresponding to a respective radial axis of the plurality of radial axes and a skill level indication of the plurality of skill level indications associated with the respective radial axis [see at least Fig. 5 and [0099] “For example, radar chart system 108 may be used to select people 136 for team 207 for radar chart 202 and display balance of skills 200 on radar chart 202 all at once.”];
receiving a first user input to determine a plurality of updated skillsets, wherein the first user input comprises a completion of a challenge, project, or course associated with a first skill of the plurality of career skills by a first user; and
in response to the first user input, dynamically updating the graphical user interface to display the plurality of updated skillsets on the spider web graph [for the limitations above, see at least [0133-0134] “The process begins by displaying values for skills for a group of people on axes of a radar chart (operation 1200). Next, the process receives a request to change the values (operation 1202).
The process displays graphical controls on the axes for changing the values (operation 1204). The process receives changes to the values in user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1206). The process then changes the values based on the user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1208) with the process terminating thereafter.”;
[0069] “Additionally, the comparison may be made to identify which skills in skills 134 for candidate 218 may need improvement. For example, additional experience, classes, education, or other things may be offered to candidate 218 to help increase skills in a group of skills 134 that need improvement.”],
(original vs citation) wherein the dynamically updating the graphical user interface comprises simultaneously displaying the plurality of user skillsets and the plurality of updated skillsets on the spider graph to indicate an advancement of the first user in the first skill, each updated skillset of the plurality of updated skillsets corresponding to a respective radial axis of the plurality of radial axes and an updated skill level indication of the plurality of skill level indications associated with the respective radial axis,
(original vs citation) wherein the displayed plurality of user skillsets are skillsets of a first user, and
(original vs citation) wherein the displayed plurality of updated skillsets are skillsets of the first user [see at least [0133-0134] “The process begins by displaying values for skills for a group of people on axes of a radar chart (operation 1200). Next, the process receives a request to change the values (operation 1202).
The process displays graphical controls on the axes for changing the values (operation 1204). The process receives changes to the values in user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1206). The process then changes the values based on the user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1208) with the process terminating thereafter.”;
Fig. 5 and [0099] “For example, radar chart system 108 may be used to select people 136 for team 207 for radar chart 202 and display balance of skills 200 on radar chart 202 all at once.”].
Herman doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach however Chart.js discloses
(original vs citation vs clarification: strikethrough of italicized original followed by plain lettering clarification in bold) wherein the dynamically updating the graphical user interface comprises simultaneously displaying two or more different data sets on the spider web graph to indicate an advancement of the , each label of the second data set corresponding to a respective radial axis of the plurality of radial axes and value of the second data set indications associated with the respective radial axis,
(original vs citation vs clarification: strikethrough of italicized original followed by plain lettering clarification in bold) wherein the displayed first data set, and
(original vs citation vs clarification: strikethrough of italicized original followed by plain lettering clarification in bold) wherein the displayed first data set [see at least first figure and [pg 1, 5] “A radar chart is a way of showing multiple data points and the variation between them.
They are often useful for comparing the points of two or more different data sets.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Herman with Chart.js to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Chart.js. Doing so would improve Herman’s (Herman) skill identification via a more detailed visual presentation of the skill(s) [see at least Chart.js [pg 1, 5] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) Herman and b) Chart.js and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3 and 16, modified Herman teaches the method of claim 1,
and Herman teaches wherein the displaying the plurality of user skillsets on the spider web graph comprises:
displaying the plurality of user skillsets as a first polygon with each radial axis of the first polygon defined by a respective user skillset of the plurality of user skillsets [see at least [0133-0134] “The process begins by displaying values for skills for a group of people on axes of a radar chart (operation 1200). Next, the process receives a request to change the values (operation 1202).
The process displays graphical controls on the axes for changing the values (operation 1204). The process receives changes to the values in user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1206). The process then changes the values based on the user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1208) with the process terminating thereafter.”;
Fig. 5 and [0099] “For example, radar chart system 108 may be used to select people 136 for team 207 for radar chart 202 and display balance of skills 200 on radar chart 202 all at once.”].
Regarding claim 4, modified Herman teaches the method of claim 3,
and Herman teaches wherein a first user skillset of the plurality of user skillsets corresponds to a first radial axis of the first polygon,
wherein a second user skillset of the plurality of user skillsets corresponds to a second radial axis of the first polygon, the second radial axis being adjacent to the first radial axis, and
wherein the first radial axis of the first polygon is connected to the second radial axis of the first polygon [see at least [0133-0134] “The process begins by displaying values for skills for a group of people on axes of a radar chart (operation 1200). Next, the process receives a request to change the values (operation 1202).
The process displays graphical controls on the axes for changing the values (operation 1204). The process receives changes to the values in user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1206). The process then changes the values based on the user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1208) with the process terminating thereafter.”;
Fig. 5 and [0099-0113] “For example, radar chart system 108 may be used to select people 136 for team 207 for radar chart 202 and display balance of skills 200 on radar chart 202 all at once.”].
Regarding claim 5, modified Herman teaches the method of claim 3,
and Herman teaches wherein the dynamically updating the graphical user interface comprises: displaying the plurality of updated skillsets as a second polygon with each radial axis of the second polygon defined by a respective updated skillset of the plurality of updated skillsets [see at least [0133-0134] “The process begins by displaying values for skills for a group of people on axes of a radar chart (operation 1200). Next, the process receives a request to change the values (operation 1202).
The process displays graphical controls on the axes for changing the values (operation 1204). The process receives changes to the values in user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1206). The process then changes the values based on the user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1208) with the process terminating thereafter.”;
Fig. 5 and [0099-0113] “For example, radar chart system 108 may be used to select people 136 for team 207 for radar chart 202 and display balance of skills 200 on radar chart 202 all at once.”].
Regarding claim(s) 17, the claim(s) recite(s) analogous limitations to claim(s) 5 above and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 6 (currently amended), modified Herman teaches the method of claim 5,
and Herman teaches wherein a first updated skillset of the plurality of updated skillsets corresponds to a first radial axis of the second polygon,
wherein a second updated skillset of the plurality of updated skillsets corresponds to a second radial axis of the second polygon, the second radial axis being adjacent to the first radial axis, and
wherein the first radial axis of the second polygon is connected to the second radial axis of the second polygon [for the limitations above, see at least [0133-0134] “The process begins by displaying values for skills for a group of people on axes of a radar chart (operation 1200). Next, the process receives a request to change the values (operation 1202).
The process displays graphical controls on the axes for changing the values (operation 1204). The process receives changes to the values in user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1206). The process then changes the values based on the user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1208) with the process terminating thereafter.”;
Fig. 5 and [0099-0113] “For example, radar chart system 108 may be used to select people 136 for team 207 for radar chart 202 and display balance of skills 200 on radar chart 202 all at once.”].
Regarding claim 7, modified Herman teaches the method of claim 1,
and Herman teaches wherein the spider web graph comprises a polygon with each radial axis of the polygon defined by a respective skill level indication of the plurality of skill level indications [see at least [0133-0134] “The process begins by displaying values for skills for a group of people on axes of a radar chart (operation 1200). Next, the process receives a request to change the values (operation 1202).
The process displays graphical controls on the axes for changing the values (operation 1204). The process receives changes to the values in user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1206). The process then changes the values based on the user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1208) with the process terminating thereafter.”;
Fig. 5 and [0099-0113] “For example, radar chart system 108 may be used to select people 136 for team 207 for radar chart 202 and display balance of skills 200 on radar chart 202 all at once.”].
Regarding claim 8, modified Herman teaches the method of claim 1,
and Herman teaches further comprising: displaying the plurality of skill level indications of each radial axis of the plurality of radial axes such that a low skill level indication of the plurality of skill level indications is closer to a center of the spider web graph than a high skill level indication of the plurality of skill level indications [see at least [0133-0134] “The process begins by displaying values for skills for a group of people on axes of a radar chart (operation 1200). Next, the process receives a request to change the values (operation 1202).
The process displays graphical controls on the axes for changing the values (operation 1204). The process receives changes to the values in user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1206). The process then changes the values based on the user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1208) with the process terminating thereafter.”;
Fig. 5 and [0099-0113] “For example, radar chart system 108 may be used to select people 136 for team 207 for radar chart 202 and display balance of skills 200 on radar chart 202 all at once.”].
Regarding claim 9 and 18 (currently amended), modified Herman teaches the method of claim 1,
and Herman teaches further comprising: receiving a second user input comprising an overall skill level for an employee position type,
determining a second plurality of updated skillsets based on the overall skill level; and
(original vs citation) simultaneously displaying the plurality of user skillsets and the second plurality of updated skillsets on the spider web graph to indicate the overall skill level for the employee position type relative to a skill level of the first user [for the limitations above, see at least [0133-0134] “The process begins by displaying values for skills for a group of people on axes of a radar chart (operation 1200). Next, the process receives a request to change the values (operation 1202).
The process displays graphical controls on the axes for changing the values (operation 1204). The process receives changes to the values in user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1206). The process then changes the values based on the user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1208) with the process terminating thereafter.”;
[0099] “. In this example, balance of skills 200 is updated in radar chart 202 each time at least one of values 135 for skills 134 for people 136 on team 207 are changed or the people selected on team 207 are changed.”;
[0006] “For example, combining information about employees may be desirable for performing operations such as identifying new hires, selecting teams for projects, and other operations in the organization”;
[0009] “For example, an overall score based on skills and other factors for potential hires or existing employees may be made and displayed on bar or line charts.”;
[0004] “As yet another example, an information system may be used to hire new employees, assign employees to projects, perform reviews for employees, and other suitable operations for the organization.”;
[0107] “In this illustrative example, bar chart 506 includes bars 544 and average value 546 for skills 134. In this illustrative example, policy 216 is for having average value 546 for skills 134 for team 510.”;
[0110] “In the illustrative example, the people shown in radar chart 502 are updated as people are moved between list of people 508 and team 510. The height of bars 544 and average value 546 are also updated as people are moved between list of people 508 and team 510. Thus, graphical user interface 500 may be used to analyze different combinations of adding or removing people from team 510 to meet policy 216.”;
[0118-0119] “Turning to FIG. 8, an illustration of changing values for skills for a group of people on a radar chart in a graphical user interface is depicted in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. In this illustrative example, the value in values 542 for skill 703 has been changed.
As depicted, the height of a bar in bars 544 for skill 703 has been updated to show the change in the average for skill 703 for team 510. Thus, graphical user interface 500 may be used to analyze different combinations of values for skills of people in team 510 for suggesting changes to skills for people in team 510.”;
[0015] the radar chart (spider web graph) can be for an individual or team with various skills as noted in ([0006, 0009, 0004]) and their implementation as noted in ([0107, 0110, 0118-0119]) is the same as it is based on skills for an individual (all skills) or team (one skill per team member) “The features and functions can be achieved independently in various embodiments of the present disclosure or may be combined in yet other embodiments in which further details can be seen with reference to the following description and drawings”;
[0133-0134] first input is average value 546 from policy 216 “The process begins by displaying values for skills for a group of people on axes of a radar chart (operation 1200). Next, the process receives a request to change the values (operation 1202).
The process displays graphical controls on the axes for changing the values (operation 1204). The process receives changes to the values in user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1206). The process then changes the values based on the user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1208) with the process terminating thereafter.”].
Modified Herman doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach however Chart.js discloses
(original vs citation vs clarification: strikethrough of italicized original followed by plain lettering clarification in bold) simultaneously displaying the first data set and the second data set on the spider web graph to indicate the second data set relative to first data set [see at least first figure and [pg 1, 5] “A radar chart is a way of showing multiple data points and the variation between them.
They are often useful for comparing the points of two or more different data sets.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Herman with Chart.js to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Chart.js. Doing so would improve modified Herman’s (Herman) skill identification via a more detailed visual presentation of the skill(s) [see at least Chart.js [pg 1, 5] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Herman and b) Chart.js and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10 and 19, modified Herman teaches the method of claim 1,
and Herman teaches further comprising:
determining a user career path,
wherein the determining the plurality of career skills comprises:
determining the plurality of career skills based on the user career path [for the limitations above, see at least [0006, 0009, 0004, 0107] determine a career path for a single user based on multiple users;
[0006] “For example, combining information about employees may be desirable for performing operations such as identifying new hires, selecting teams for projects, and other operations in the organization”;
[0009] “For example, an overall score based on skills and other factors for potential hires or existing employees may be made and displayed on bar or line charts.”;
[0004] “As yet another example, an information system may be used to hire new employees, assign employees to projects, perform reviews for employees, and other suitable operations for the organization.”;
[0107] “In this illustrative example, bar chart 506 includes bars 544 and average value 546 for skills 134. In this illustrative example, policy 216 is for having average value 546 for skills 134 for team 510.”;
[0015] the radar chart (spider web graph) can be for an individual or team with various skills as noted in ([0006, 0009, 0004]) and their implementation as noted in ([0107, 0110, 0118-0119]) is the same as it is based on skills for an individual (all skills) or team (one skill per team member) “The features and functions can be achieved independently in various embodiments of the present disclosure or may be combined in yet other embodiments in which further details can be seen with reference to the following description and drawings”].
Regarding claim 11 and 20 (currently amended), modified Herman teaches the method of claim 1,
and Herman teaches further comprising: receiving an indication of a potential career path associated with the first user;
redetermining the plurality of career skills based on the potential career path;
dynamically updating the spider web graph based on the redetermining the plurality of career skills;
redetermining the plurality of user skillsets based on the redetermining the plurality of career skills; and
dynamically updating the plurality of user skillsets on the spider web graph based on the redetermining the plurality of user skillsets [for the limitations above, see at least [0006, 0009, 0004, 0107] determine a career path for a single user based on multiple users;
[0006] “For example, combining information about employees may be desirable for performing operations such as identifying new hires, selecting teams for projects, and other operations in the organization”;
[0009] “For example, an overall score based on skills and other factors for potential hires or existing employees may be made and displayed on bar or line charts.”;
[0004] “As yet another example, an information system may be used to hire new employees, assign employees to projects, perform reviews for employees, and other suitable operations for the organization.”;
[0107] “In this illustrative example, bar chart 506 includes bars 544 and average value 546 for skills 134. In this illustrative example, policy 216 is for having average value 546 for skills 134 for team 510.”;
[0110] “In the illustrative example, the people shown in radar chart 502 are updated as people are moved between list of people 508 and team 510. The height of bars 544 and average value 546 are also updated as people are moved between list of people 508 and team 510. Thus, graphical user interface 500 may be used to analyze different combinations of adding or removing people from team 510 to meet policy 216.”;
[0118-0119] “Turning to FIG. 8, an illustration of changing values for skills for a group of people on a radar chart in a graphical user interface is depicted in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. In this illustrative example, the value in values 542 for skill 703 has been changed.
As depicted, the height of a bar in bars 544 for skill 703 has been updated to show the change in the average for skill 703 for team 510. Thus, graphical user interface 500 may be used to analyze different combinations of values for skills of people in team 510 for suggesting changes to skills for people in team 510.”;
[0015] the radar chart (spider web graph) can be for an individual or team with various skills as noted in ([0006, 0009, 0004]) and their implementation as noted in ([0107, 0110, 0118-0119]) is the same as it is based on skills for an individual (all skills) or team (one skill per team member) “The features and functions can be achieved independently in various embodiments of the present disclosure or may be combined in yet other embodiments in which further details can be seen with reference to the following description and drawings”;
[0133-0134] first input is average value 546 from policy 216 “The process begins by displaying values for skills for a group of people on axes of a radar chart (operation 1200). Next, the process receives a request to change the values (operation 1202).
The process displays graphical controls on the axes for changing the values (operation 1204). The process receives changes to the values in user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1206). The process then changes the values based on the user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1208) with the process terminating thereafter.”].
Claim(s) 12 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman in view of Chart.js as applied to claim(s) 1 and 14 above and further in view of Knupfer (US 2020/0258045 A1).
Regarding claim 12 (currently amended), modified Herman teaches the method of claim 1,
and Herman teaches wherein the determining the plurality of user skillsets comprises:
(original vs citation vs clarification: strikethrough of italicized original followed by plain lettering clarification in bold) determining each user skillset of the plurality of user skillsets based on evidence associated with a respective user skillset, the evidence comprising at least one of: data [see at least [0126-0128] “The process begins by identifying values for skills for a group of people (operation 1000). Next, the process identifies a balance of skills for the group of people that meets a policy for desired values for the skills (operation 1002) with the process terminating thereafter. For example, if the policy in operation 1002 is that the group of people has the desired value of 5 for the skills, the balance of skills is values for the skills that meet the desired value of 5 when the balance of skills is added to the group of people.
As another example, the policy in operation 1002 may be that the group of people has average values for the skills that do not go outside a range of values. A range of values is the values between two values. For example, when the highest value of skill is 10, the range of values for the policy may be for maintaining an average of between 3 and 10 for the average values for the skills.
As still another example, the policy in operation 1002 may be that the group of people has average values for the skills that meet a list of values selected for the skills. For example, an operator may have selected the list of values for the average values for the policy.”;
[0133-0134] where the data from ([0126-128]) is updated data “The process begins by displaying values for skills for a group of people on axes of a radar chart (operation 1200). Next, the process receives a request to change the values (operation 1202).
The process displays graphical controls on the axes for changing the values (operation 1204). The process receives changes to the values in user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1206). The process then changes the values based on the user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1208) with the process terminating thereafter.”;
Fig. 1 and [0033, 0038, 0041-0042] “information environment 100 includes information system 102. … As depicted, information system 102 includes radar chart system 108 and database 110. Radar chart system 108 and database 110 may be implemented in computer system 112. … As depicted, display system 118 is a hardware system and includes one or more display devices on which graphical user interface 116 may be displayed. Operator 120 is a person who may interact with graphical user interface 116 through user input 122 generated by user input device 124 in computer system 112.”].
Modified Herman doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach however Knupfer discloses
(original vs citation) determining each user skillset of the plurality of user skillsets based on evidence associated with a respective user skillset, the evidence comprising at least one of: a completed challenge, a completed project, or a completed course [see at least Fig. 7 and [0075-0077, 0080, 0084, 0085] “FIG. 7 shows the process 240 of selecting and presenting challenges 84 to a user in greater detail. Upon selection by the user of a skill 72 to be assessed in, the application server 64 retrieves the user skill levels (241). … Using the user skill levels, a challenge 84 is selected (242). … The challenge 84 is then presented to the user (243). … Returning again to FIG. 7, the client application 68 receives response input from the user (244). … Upon receipt of the response input, the application server 64 scores the response input (245). … The user skill levels are then updated in view of the response input score (246).”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Herman with Knupfer to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Knupfer. Doing so would improve modified Herman’s (Herman) skill identification via expanding on what course selection is offered [see at least Knupfer [0002-0008] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Herman and b) Knupfer and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21 and 22, modified Herman teaches the method of claim 1,
and Herman teaches (original vs citation) further comprising, prior to receiving the first user input, displaying, on the graphical user interface, the challenge, project, or course associated with the first skill, the challenge, project, or course being selectable for completion by the first user to improve a level of the first skill [see at least [0069] “Additionally, the comparison may be made to identify which skills in skills 134 for candidate 218 may need improvement. For example, additional experience, classes, education, or other things may be offered to candidate 218 to help increase skills in a group of skills 134 that need improvement.”;
[0124 “The process illustrated in this example enables analyzing the skills through the balance of skills displayed in the radar chart. With this analysis, real-world operations may be performed for organization 106. These real-world operations may include hiring a person, forming a team, identifying continuing education classes for people, and other operations for organization 106.”].
Modified Herman doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach however Knupfer discloses
further comprising, prior to receiving the first user input, displaying, on the graphical user interface, the challenge, project, or course associated with the first skill, the challenge, project, or course being selectable for completion by the first user to improve a level of the first skill [see at least Fig. 5 and [0072-0073] “Referring again to FIG. 5, the user then launches the client application 68 (220). …
Once the client application 68 is opened on the client computing device 28, the user can select one of the skills 72 offered by the computer system 20 to be assessed in (230). The user can select to be assessed in a skill 72 previously selected by the user, or can select to be assessed in a new skill 72.”;
Fig. 7 and [0075-0077, 0080, 0084, 0085] “FIG. 7 shows the process 240 of selecting and presenting challenges 84 to a user in greater detail. Upon selection by the user of a skill 72 to be assessed in, the application server 64 retrieves the user skill levels (241). … Using the user skill levels, a challenge 84 is selected (242). … The challenge 84 is then presented to the user (243). … Returning again to FIG. 7, the client application 68 receives response input from the user (244). … Upon receipt of the response input, the application server 64 scores the response input (245). … The user skill levels are then updated in view of the response input score (246).”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Herman with Knupfer to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Knupfer. Doing so would improve modified Herman’s (Herman) skill identification via expanding on what course selection is offered [see at least Knupfer [0002-0008] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Herman and b) Knupfer and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman in view of Chart.js and Knupfer as applied to claim(s) 12 above and further in view of Flerlage published March 17, 2019 (reference V on the Notice of References Cited).
Regarding claim 13 (currently amended), modified Herman teaches the method of claim 12,
and Herman teaches further comprising:
receiving a second user input on a user skillset of the plurality of user skillsets; and
(original vs citation) in response to the second user input, displaying the evidence associated with the user skillset [for the limitations above, see at least [0126-0128] “The process begins by identifying values for skills for a group of people (operation 1000). Next, the process identifies a balance of skills for the group of people that meets a policy for desired values for the skills (operation 1002) with the process terminating thereafter. For example, if the policy in operation 1002 is that the group of people has the desired value of 5 for the skills, the balance of skills is values for the skills that meet the desired value of 5 when the balance of skills is added to the group of people.
As another example, the policy in operation 1002 may be that the group of people has average values for the skills that do not go outside a range of values. A range of values is the values between two values. For example, when the highest value of skill is 10, the range of values for the policy may be for maintaining an average of between 3 and 10 for the average values for the skills.
As still another example, the policy in operation 1002 may be that the group of people has average values for the skills that meet a list of values selected for the skills. For example, an operator may have selected the list of values for the average values for the policy.”;
[0133-0134] where the data from ([0126-128]) is updated data “The process begins by displaying values for skills for a group of people on axes of a radar chart (operation 1200). Next, the process receives a request to change the values (operation 1202).
The process displays graphical controls on the axes for changing the values (operation 1204). The process receives changes to the values in user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1206). The process then changes the values based on the user input made to the graphical controls (operation 1208) with the process terminating thereafter.”;
Fig. 1 and [0033, 0038, 0041-0042] “information environment 100 includes information system 102. … As depicted, information system 102 includes radar chart system 108 and database 110. Radar chart system 108 and database 110 may be implemented in computer system 112. … As depicted, display system 118 is a hardware system and includes one or more display devices on which graphical user interface 116 may be displayed. Operator 120 is a person who may interact with graphical user interface 116 through user input 122 generated by user input device 124 in computer system 112.”].
Modified Herman doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach however Flerage discloses
(original vs citation vs clarification: strikethrough of italicized original followed by plain lettering clarification in bold) displaying the data to overlay a portion of the spider web graph [see at least [pg 9-11] displaying data to overlay a portion of the spider web graph as noted in the last figure].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Herman with Flerage to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Flerage. Doing so would improve modified Herman’s (Herman) skill identification via expanding on what course selection is offered [see at least Flerage [0002-0008] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Herman and b) Flerage and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WEBB whose telephone number is (313)446-6615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-3.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JAMES WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights