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 .
The following is a first office action in response to claims filed 2/26/2024. Claims 1-11 are pending and have been examined on the merits set forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-11 is/are directed to a method, system, and computer program product. Thus, all the claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the Examiner notes that the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, independent claim recite:
acquiring, when detecting completion of a first operation by a first worker, an evaluation value for the first worker; [observation/evaluation – mental process]
outputting on the basis of the evaluation value confirmation information of ordering the first worker to perform a confirmation as to whether the first operation is normally completed, the confirmation information including more confirmation items as the evaluation value is lower; [observation/evaluation – mental process – pen and paper]
determining on the basis of confirmation result information indicative of a result of the confirmation whether the first operation is normally completed; [observation/evaluation – mental process]
determining, when the first operation is determined to be not normally completed, on the basis of the confirmation result information whether a cause due to which the first operation is not normally completed lies in a second operation by a second worker different from the first operation; [observation/evaluation – mental process] and
decreasing the evaluation value for the second worker when the cause is determined to lie in the second operation. [observation/evaluation – mental process]
The claims recite data analysis steps to related to managing personal behavior or interactions between people. This falls within Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. In addition, the claims recite mental processes as indicated in the reproduced claim above. The nominal recitation of a processor of an information processing apparatus in claim 1, an information processing apparatus in claim 10 and a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an information processing program causing a processor of an information processing apparatus to execute processing in claim 11 does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and 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, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
With respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The processor of an information processing apparatus in claim 1, an information processing apparatus in claim 10 and a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an information processing program causing a processor of an information processing apparatus to execute processing in claim 11 amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8 and 9 recite details of the confirmation and determination of cause of operation not normally completed which is mental process and certain methods of organizing as described in claim 1. Dependent claim 6 recites sensing data of a sensor to detect operational situation of an operation which amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of detection which is an observation/evaluation. The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually and in combination, the system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an acquisition part,” “an output part,” “a first determination part,” “a second determination part,” and “an evaluation part” in claim 10.
Examiner is interpreting the hardware structure of the “acquisition part” of claim 10 as being a computer, as recited in Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0054] of the specification. Examiner is interpreting the corresponding algorithm as recited in paragraphs [0066-0067] of the specification.
Examiner is interpreting the hardware structure of the “output part” of claim 10 as being a computer, as recited in Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0054] of the specification. Examiner is interpreting the corresponding algorithm as recited in paragraphs [0067] of the specification.
Examiner is interpreting the hardware structure of the “first determination part” of claim 10 as being a computer, as recited in Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0054] of the specification. Examiner is interpreting the corresponding algorithm as recited in paragraphs [0068-0069] of the specification.
Examiner is interpreting the hardware structure of the “second determination part” of claim 10 as being a computer, as recited in Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0054] of the specification. Examiner is interpreting the corresponding algorithm as recited in paragraphs [0069-0070] of the specification.
Examiner is interpreting the hardware structure of the “evaluation part” of claim 2 as being the memory of a computer, as recited in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0054] of the specification. Examiner is interpreting the corresponding algorithm as recited in paragraph [0070] of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivoiron, US 2014/0310038, in view of Kreuzkamp et al, US 2014/0278638.
As per claim 1, Rivoiron discloses an information processing method, by a processor of an information processing apparatus, comprising: detecting completion of a first operation by a first worker, ([0037] – user inputs progress data for one or more tasks of a project);
outputting on the basis of the evaluation value confirmation information of ordering the first worker to perform a confirmation as to whether the first operation is normally completed, the confirmation information including more confirmation items as the evaluation value is lower ([0039-0040] – task progress is confirmed along with a progress value, for example 80% complete);
determining on the basis of confirmation result information indicative of a result of the confirmation whether the first operation is normally completed ([0039-0040] – task progress value indicates completion, for example 80% complete – if completion is 100% then a value of 80% would indicate not normally completed);
determining, when the first operation is determined to be not normally completed, on the basis of the confirmation result information whether a cause due to which the first operation is not normally completed lies in a second operation by a second worker different from the first operation ([0047-0048] – delay value is ascribable based on progress data for previous tasks, for example, it is possible to distinguish delays caused by delays in previous tasks from delays caused at the time of the actual performance);
While Rivoiron discloses all of the above limitations including attributing the operation being not normally completed to a second worker, the reference fails to explicitly teach acquiring an evaluation value for the first worker and decreasing the evaluation value for the second worker when the cause is determined to lie in the second operation. Kreuzkamp et al discloses a scoring process wherein timeliness of task completion is considered [0036, 0037, 0066]. It is old and well known in the art to score workers based on several factors including timeliness therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Rivoiron to include a scoring process as in Kreuzkamp et al for the worker that caused the delay in task performance to better manage and track tasks and worker productivity.
As per claim 2, Rivoiron discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the confirmation information has one or more confirmation items each of which is associated with a worker responsible for the confirmation in advance ([0037, 0048, 0049] – user inputs progress data for tasks).
As per claim 3, Rivoiron discloses the information processing method according to claim 2, wherein in the determination as to whether the cause lies in the second operation, a confirmation item in connection with the cause is specified on the basis of the confirmation result information, and the cause is determined to lie in the second operation when the confirmation information shows that the specified confirmation item is associated with the second worker ([0024] – determination of cause of task delay is based on predecessor tasks).
As per claim 4, Rivoiron discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the first operation includes one or more steps, and the completion of the first operation includes completion of one of the one or more steps of the first operation ([0039] - allows identification of the second task, a first progress value for the first task, for example 80%, and a second progress value for the second task, for example 0% - completion values for steps of tasks).
As per claim 5, Rivoiron discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein in the detection of the first operation, state information indicative of progress of the first operation is acquired, and the completion of the first operation is detected on the basis of the state information ([0037] – user inputs progress data for one or more tasks).
As per claim 7, Rivoiron discloses the information processing method according to claim 5, wherein the state information includes an input notice by the first worker as to the completion of the first operation ([0037] – user inputs progress data for one or more tasks).
As per claim 8, Rivoiron discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the first operation is performed after completion of the second operation ([0048-0049] – actual performance of predecessor tasks is determined and it is determined if that task is responsible for the delay of a subsequent task).
As per claim 9, Rivoiron discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein there is a second operation and a first operation. Rivoiron fails to explicitly disclose that the second operation is an operation of placing a communication cable in a building, and the first operation is an operation of connecting the communication cable to a device and connecting the device to a network. These differences are only found in the non-functional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited nor do they alter the recited structural elements. The recited method steps would be performed the same regardless of the specific data. Further, the structural elements remain the same regardless of the specific data. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP [WP TypographicSymbols font/0x27] 2106.
As per claim 10, Rivoiron discloses an information processing apparatus [0078] comprising detecting completion of a first operation by a first worker, ([0037] – user inputs progress data for one or more tasks of a project);
outputting on the basis of the evaluation value confirmation information of ordering the first worker to perform a confirmation as to whether the first operation is normally completed, the confirmation information including more confirmation items as the evaluation value is lower ([0039-0040] – task progress is confirmed along with a progress value, for example 80% complete);
determining on the basis of confirmation result information indicative of a result of the confirmation whether the first operation is normally completed ([0039-0040] – task progress value indicates completion, for example 80% complete – if completion is 100% then a value of 80% would indicate not normally completed);
determining, when the first operation is determined to be not normally completed, on the basis of the confirmation result information whether a cause due to which the first operation is not normally completed lies in a second operation by a second worker different from the first operation ([0047-0048] – delay value is ascribable based on progress data for previous tasks, for example, it is possible to distinguish delays caused by delays in previous tasks from delays caused at the time of the actual performance);
While Rivoiron discloses all of the above limitations including attributing the operation being not normally completed to a second worker, the reference fails to explicitly teach acquiring an evaluation value for the first worker and decreasing the evaluation value for the second worker when the cause is determined to lie in the second operation. Kreuzkamp et al discloses a scoring process wherein timeliness of task completion is considered [0036, 0037, 0066]. It is old and well known in the art to score workers based on several factors including timeliness therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Rivoiron to include a scoring process as in Kreuzkamp et al for the worker that caused the delay in task performance to better manage and track tasks and worker productivity.
As per claim 11, Rivoiron discloses a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an information processing program causing a processor of an information processing apparatus [0080] to execute processing of: detecting completion of a first operation by a first worker, ([0037] – user inputs progress data for one or more tasks of a project);
outputting on the basis of the evaluation value confirmation information of ordering the first worker to perform a confirmation as to whether the first operation is normally completed, the confirmation information including more confirmation items as the evaluation value is lower ([0039-0040] – task progress is confirmed along with a progress value, for example 80% complete);
determining on the basis of confirmation result information indicative of a result of the confirmation whether the first operation is normally completed ([0039-0040] – task progress value indicates completion, for example 80% complete – if completion is 100% then a value of 80% would indicate not normally completed);
determining, when the first operation is determined to be not normally completed, on the basis of the confirmation result information whether a cause due to which the first operation is not normally completed lies in a second operation by a second worker different from the first operation ([0047-0048] – delay value is ascribable based on progress data for previous tasks, for example, it is possible to distinguish delays caused by delays in previous tasks from delays caused at the time of the actual performance);
While Rivoiron discloses all of the above limitations including attributing the operation being not normally completed to a second worker, the reference fails to explicitly teach acquiring an evaluation value for the first worker and decreasing the evaluation value for the second worker when the cause is determined to lie in the second operation. Kreuzkamp et al discloses a scoring process wherein timeliness of task completion is considered [0036, 0037, 0066]. It is old and well known in the art to score workers based on several factors including timeliness therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Rivoiron to include a scoring process as in Kreuzkamp et al for the worker that caused the delay in task performance to better manage and track tasks and worker productivity.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivoiron, US 2014/0310038, and Kreuzkamp et al, US 2014/0278638, in view of Raj et al, US 20230306353 (CON of 17/111164 filed on 12/3/2020).
As per claim 6, Rivoiron and Kreuzkamp et al while disclosing the information processing method according to claim 5, fail to explicitly disclose wherein the state information includes sensing data of a sensor for detecting an operational situation of the first operation. Raj et al discloses a worker management system that monitoring user activity based on using a microphone for directing voice responses and activity reports to the voice-directed mobile terminal [0047, 0050-0052 (applicant’s spec at 0042 describes sensor includes microphone)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Rivoiron and Kreuzkamp et al the ability to use sensors to detect state information as taught by Raj et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent prior art is listed in the attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625