DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 May 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments filed on 13 May 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 and 35 have been amended.
Claims 3, 6, 8, 11, 16, 19, 24-33, and 37 are cancelled.
Claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-18, 20-23, 34, and 36 are original / previously presented.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-18, 20-23, and 34-36 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-18, 20-23, and 34-36 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The Office has incorrectly characterized the claimed subject matter as a ‘certain method of organizing human activity’ by improperly replacing the recited functions with a hypothetical series of human actions (e.g. an HR employee receiving requests and creating workflow tasks). Eligibility under 35 USC 101 however must be evaluated based on what the claims actually recite, not on an imagined manual process that could loosely approximate the invention. The claims do not recite human decision-making, interpersonal organization, or business rules governing people. Instead the claims recite computer-implemented operations fort displaying, modifying, recording, verifying, and executing changes to a hierarchical data structure via a graphical user interface” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. The claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities representing the subgroupings of business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. These activities are present in the limitations of in response to receiving first user input… displaying a data structure comprising a plurality of… elements…, wherein the plurality of…elements are displayed in a pattern…, and wherein the pattern indicates a hierarchical relationship of an organization department; receiving second user input associated with at least one of the plurality of… elements, wherein the second user input indicates an adjustment to the pattern in which the plurality of… elements are displayed; generating a processing item that records the adjustment to the pattern in which the plurality of… elements are displayed; in response to receiving third user input…, triggering a verification process associated with the processing item…, wherein the verification process evaluates the processing item to determine if the adjustment to the pattern would cause a structural conflict in the data structure; and executing the processing item to implement the adjustment to the pattern in response to approval and completion of the verification process are certain methods of organizing human activities. For example, business relations includes wherein the pattern indicates a hierarchal relationship of an organization department, receiving second user input… second user input indicates an adjustment to the pattern…, generating a processing item that records the adjustment…, receiving third user input… triggering a verification process…, evaluating the processing item…, determining if the adjustment to the pattern would cause a structural conflict…, executing the processing item to implement the adjustment…, approval and completion of the verification process (noting these are each activities that a business employee would engage in regarding a business and/or relationships with that business); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes receiving first user input…, displaying a data structure… wherein the elements are displayed in a pattern… and wherein the pattern indicates a hierarchal relationship of an organization department, receiving second user input… second user input indicates an adjustment to the pattern…, generating a processing item that records the adjustment…, receiving third user input… triggering a verification process…, evaluating the processing item…, determining if the adjustment to the pattern would cause a structural conflict…, executing the processing item to implement the adjustment…, approval and completion of the verification process (noting that these are each activities that a person would perform individually or people would perform together); and following rules or instructions includes receiving first user input…, displaying a data structure… wherein the elements are displayed in a pattern… and wherein the pattern indicates a hierarchal relationship of an organization department, receiving second user input… second user input indicates an adjustment to the pattern…, generating a processing item that records the adjustment…, receiving third user input… triggering a verification process…, evaluating the processing item…, determining if the adjustment to the pattern would cause a structural conflict…, executing the processing item to implement the adjustment…, approval and completion of the verification process (noting that these are each activities that represent instructions for a person / people to follow or business rules associated with activities of a person / people). The recitation of general purpose / generic computers to implement a judicial exception does not preclude the claim from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities. The test is whether or not the activity is recited. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) stating the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. Since the claims recite activities that are certain methods of organizing human activities that satisfy the subgroupings, the claims recite a judicial exception. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The limitation directed to ‘displaying a data structure comprising a plurality of interactive user interface elements… wherein the pattern indicates a hierarchy relationship’ is not directed to organizing human activity, even if the underlying data represents an organizational hierarchy. Displaying and managing a hierarchy as a data structure rendered in a graphical user interface is a technical operation concerning how a computer stores, renders, and manipulates structured data. The Office’s reasoning erroneously conflates the subject of the data (e.g., organizational departments) with the focus of the claim (computer handling of hierarchal graphical data)” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. The limitation of “in response to receiving first user input… displaying a data structure comprising a plurality of… elements…, wherein the plurality of… elements are displayed in a pattern…, and wherein the pattern indicates a hierarchical relationship of an organization department” represents certain methods of organizing human activities. This limitation encompasses at least three subcategories of certain methods of organizing human activities including business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions (i.e. an individual (e.g. human resources employee) receives a request from a requestor (e.g. supervisor) for an organizational hierarchy of a department and then the individual displays it to the requestor). The claimed elements of a user interface and interactive user interface elements are recited at a high level of detail and no more than applying the judicial exception on a generic computer / general computer components, which (1) does not preclude the claim from reciting the judicial exception (since the activity of receiving and displaying is recited), and (2) does not provide a practical application or significantly more, per MPEP 2106.05(f). There are no particular, technical features in this limitation make this more than implementing a judicial exception on a general computer component that could possibly represent a practical application or significantly more (i.e. technical steps beyond using a computer in its ordinary capacity to implement a judicial exception and/or extra-solution activities). This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “the steps of ‘receiving second user input… indicating an adjustment to the pattern’, ‘generating a processing item that records the adjustment,’ ‘triggering a verification process,’ ‘displaying information,’ and ‘executing the processing item’ do not recite a certain method of organizing human activities. Instead these limitations describe user-interface level manipulation of a graphical data structure, a computer’s creation of a processing item as a data object that records structural changes, and the verification and execution of such a processing item. The claim does not recite a human workflow, interpersonal coordination, or following business rules – it recites system logic for recording and managing changes to a structured graphical representation. The Office’s characterization of a computer-generated processing item as a ‘workflow task generated by an individual’ is unsupported by the claim language and constitutes improper hindsight reconstruction” (Remarks pg. 13). Examiner disagrees. A supervisor and human resource employee are used in hypothetical examples in place of a first user / second user to illustrate how the claimed activities represent the subgroupings of certain methods of organizing human activities because the scope of the claims include “wherein the pattern indicates a hierarchal relationship of an organization department”. First, the limitations “receiving second user input associated with at least one of the plurality of… elements, wherein the second user input indicates an adjustment to the pattern in which the plurality of… elements are displayed” represents certain methods of organizing human activities. This limitation encompasses at least three subcategories of certain methods of organizing human activities including business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions (i.e. the second user (e.g. supervisor) of the organizational hierarchy of a department provides an instruction to an individual (e.g. human resources employee) to adjust to element(s) in the organizational hierarchy pattern that was provided). The claimed elements of the interactive user interface elements are recited at a high level of detail and no more than applying the judicial exception on a generic computer / general computer components, which (1) does not preclude the claim from reciting the judicial exception (since the activity of receiving an adjustment is recited), and (2) does not provide a practical application or significantly more, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Second, the limitations of generating a processing item that records the adjustment to the pattern in which the plurality of interactive… elements are displayed” represents certain methods of organizing human activities. The processing item is recited at a high level and not technical, and represents a work flow task. This limitation encompasses at least three subcategories of certain methods of organizing human activities including business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions (i.e. after receiving the second user requestor’s (e.g. supervisor) adjustment to the hierarchy, a workflow task is generated by an individual (e.g. human resource employee) that documents the adjustment request for verification and approval). The claimed elements of the interactive user interface elements are recited at a high level of detail and no more than applying the judicial exception on a generic computer / general computer components, which (1) does not preclude the claim from reciting the judicial exception (since the activity of generating a processing item is recited), and (2) does not provide a practical application or significantly more. Third, the limitation of “in response to receiving third user input…, triggering a verification process associated with the processing item” represents certain methods of organizing human activities. The processing item is recited at a high level and not technical, and represents a work flow task. This limitation encompasses at least three subcategories of certain methods of organizing human activities including business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions (i.e. after the workflow task for verification / approval is generated by an individual (e.g. human resource employee), the individual initiates sending the approval / verification task to the appropriate approver (e.g. manager) for approval / verification). The claimed element of the user interface is recited at a high level of detail and no more than applying the judicial exception on a generic computer / general computer components, which (1) does not preclude the claim from reciting the judicial exception (since the activity of receiving an input that triggers a verification process is claimed), and (2) does not provide a practical application or significantly more. Fourth, the limitation of “displaying information indicating a status of the verification process via the interface” is not identified as a certain method of organizing human activity, and instead is an additional element in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B that is recited at a high level of detail as insignificant extra-solution outputting of data (e.g. a general means of displaying / presenting / outputting of information associated with the verification process). This presence of this additional element does not preclude the limitation from otherwise reciting certain methods of organizing human activities; and it does not provide a practical application or significantly more. Fifth, the limitation of “executing the processing item to implement the adjustment to the pattern in response to approval and completion of the verification process” represents certain methods of organizing human activities. Executing the processing item, implementing the adjustment is recited at a high level and not technical, and represents a work flow task. This limitation encompasses at least three subcategories of certain methods of organizing human activities including business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions (i.e. after the approval, an individual (i.e. a human resource employee) implements the adjustment). Hence, these limitations either represent the judicial exception implemented by general purpose / general computer components which does not preclude the claim from reciting a judicial exception; or represent high level extra-solution activities to the judicial exception (i.e. outputting data) using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity, which also does not preclude the claim from otherwise reciting a judicial exception. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “When properly construed, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by improving how a computer system manages user-driven changes to a hierarchal graphical design structure” (Remarks pg. 13). Examiner disagrees. The additional elements do not provide a practical application of the judicial exception. The additional elements are more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (interface, interactive interface elements, memory, processor); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (outputting data, data gathering, electronic record keeping / data storage). None of the additional elements provide particular, technical details that would represent a practical application. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The claimed method does not merely receive, store, or display information. Instead it introduces a specific control mechanism in which (i) user-initiated adjustments to a hierarchal graphical data structure are recorded in a processing item, (ii) the processing item is verified prior to execution to determine whether the adjustment would cause a structural conflict, and (iii) the adjustment is executed only after successful verification and approval. This ordered set of operations constrains how and when the computer system is permitted to apply modification to the data structure. Such constraints change the normal functioning of the computer system by preventing conflicting structural states form being applied to the data structure. This is a practical application because it directly affects how the computer controls and enforces the integrity of a data structure” (Remarks pg. 13). Examiner disagrees. The claims as a whole and in combination represent a judicial exception of certain methods of organizing human activities (business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) that is merely implemented in a computer environment with high level extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering, outputting data, data storage). This is not an improvement to the computer itself outside of the judicial exception. At best the claims only represent improving a business / commercial process (i.e. an approval workflow with rules for hierarchy changes) using computers as a tool which is not a practical application. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “Recording adjustments separately from execution, verifying them, displaying verification status, and conditionally executing the processing item only if the processing item is verified is a non-generic control flow that prevents conflicting adjustments to be made to the data hierarchal structure. The Office does not explain how such an arrangement is conventional or generic” (Remarks pg. 14-18). Examiner disagrees. The extra-solution elements in these limitations are routine / well-understood / conventional activities and do no more in combination than they do individually, providing high level outputting of data (e.g. displaying a status of the verification process) and storing data (e.g. storing the adjustment to the pattern without modifying the displayed data structure based on the adjustment to the pattern) around the judicial exception. For the displaying, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0073], ¶[0102-103] describing the element of displaying a personnel change status, and processing item status at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). For the storing, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0063], ¶[0097] describing the additional element of recording an adjustment record for an approval flow that is not implemented right away at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Note the brevity of this discussion in the Applicant specification. In combination, these additional elements lack particular technical details still only amount to using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit / output data, to store data) in high level extra-solution activities, which is not significantly more; and do not provide an unconventional architecture beyond implementation of the invention on a general purpose / generic computer system. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-18, 20-23, and 34-36 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection (Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden). However, please note the following:
Applicant argues that you does not teach / disclose “Claim 1 requires that generating the processing item comprises storing the adjustment to the pattern without modifying the displayed data structure based on the adjustment to the patter” and “even if it could be should that Yu ‘stores’ information related to the user’s editing operations somewhere, Yu does not disclose doing so without modifying the displayed data structure based on the adjustment to the pattern” (Remarks pg. 15). Examiner disagrees. Yu teaches the limitation “wherein generating the processing item comprises storing the adjustment to the pattern without modifying the displayed data structure based on the adjustment to the pattern ” in Yu claim 2, pg. 15 ln 12-16, where it details creating an organizational change applicant / application in accordance with the editing instructions recording the editing events (i.e. storing), determining whether the organizational change applicant / application is approved, and if so, then updating an organizational architecture database table of the organizational architecture graph according to the edit event presenting the determined organizational architecture graph in the front end page according to the updated organizational architecture database table, i.e. the adjusted pattern (organizational change applicant / application) is recorded / stored independent of the displayed data structure and the data structure is not modified until the change is approved. Hence, Yu teaches this limitation and this argument is not persuasive.
Priority
This application 18/710,154 filed on 14 May 2024 is a national stage entry of PCT/CN2022/131908. The application PCT/CN2022/131908 filed on 15 November 2022 claims priority from Peoples Republic of China application 202111350473.0 filed on 15 November 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 2 August 2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-18, 20-23, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-18, 20-23, and 34-36:
Step 1:
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-18, 20-23, and 34-36 recite a method; claim 35 recites an apparatus; and claim 36 recites a device. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-18, 20-23, and 34-36 recite an abstract idea. Independent claims 1 and 36 recite in response to receiving first user input… displaying a data structure comprising a plurality of… elements…, wherein the plurality of…elements are displayed in a pattern…, and wherein the pattern indicates a hierarchical relationship of an organization department; receiving second user input associated with at least one of the plurality of… elements, wherein the second user input indicates an adjustment to the pattern in which the plurality of… elements are displayed; generating a processing item that records the adjustment to the pattern in which the plurality of… elements are displayed; in response to receiving third user input…, triggering a verification process associated with the processing item…, wherein the verification process evaluates the processing item to determine if the adjustment to the pattern would cause a structural conflict in the data structure; and executing the processing item to implement the adjustment to the pattern in response to approval and completion of the verification process. Independent claim 35 recites to display a data structure comprising a plurality of… elements on in response to receiving first user input…, wherein the plurality of… elements are displayed in a pattern, and wherein the pattern indicates a hierarchical relationship of an organization department; and to: receive second user input associated with at least one of the plurality of… elements, wherein the second user input indicates an adjustment to the pattern in which the plurality of… elements are displayed; generate a processing item that records the adjustment to the pattern in which the plurality of… elements are displayed; trigger a verification process associated with the first processing item in response to receiving third user input…, wherein the verification process evaluates the processing item to determine if the adjustment to the pattern would cause a structural conflict in the data structure; and execute the processing item to implement the adjustment to the pattern in response to approval and completion of the verification process. The claims as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities.
First, the limitations of in response to receiving first user input… displaying a data structure comprising a plurality of… elements…, wherein the plurality of…elements are displayed in a pattern…, and wherein the pattern indicates a hierarchical relationship of an organization department; receiving second user input associated with at least one of the plurality of… elements, wherein the second user input indicates an adjustment to the pattern in which the plurality of… elements are displayed; generating a processing item that records the adjustment to the pattern in which the plurality of… elements are displayed; in response to receiving third user input…, triggering a verification process associated with the processing item…, wherein the verification process evaluates the processing item to determine if the adjustment to the pattern would cause a structural conflict in the data structure; and executing the processing item to implement the adjustment to the pattern in response to approval and completion of the verification process are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. For example, business relations includes wherein the pattern indicates a hierarchal relationship of an organization department, receiving second user input… second user input indicates an adjustment to the pattern…, generating a processing item that records the adjustment…, receiving third user input… triggering a verification process…, evaluating the processing item…, determining if the adjustment to the pattern would cause a structural conflict…, executing the processing item to implement the adjustment…, approval and completion of the verification process; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes receiving first user input…, displaying a data structure… wherein the elements are displayed in a pattern… and wherein the pattern indicates a hierarchal relationship of an organization department, receiving second user input… second user input indicates an adjustment to the pattern…, generating a processing item that records the adjustment…, receiving third user input… triggering a verification process…, evaluating the processing item…, determining if the adjustment to the pattern would cause a structural conflict…, executing the processing item to implement the adjustment…, approval and completion of the verification process; and following rules or instructions includes receiving first user input…, displaying a data structure… wherein the elements are displayed in a pattern… and wherein the pattern indicates a hierarchal relationship of an organization department, receiving second user input… second user input indicates an adjustment to the pattern…, generating a processing item that records the adjustment…, receiving third user input… triggering a verification process…, evaluating the processing item…, determining if the adjustment to the pattern would cause a structural conflict…, executing the processing item to implement the adjustment…, approval and completion of the verification process. The presence of generic computer components such as a user interface, interactive user interface elements, and processor does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. user interface, interactive user interface elements, processor) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform a judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of displaying status and its limitation displaying information indicating a status of the verification process via the interface are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means of displaying / presenting / outputting of information), and amounts to mere outputting of data, which is a form of extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the processor, interface (generic computer, general computer component) is only being used as a tool in the displaying, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding displaying more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (providing information). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of storing and its limitation wherein generating the processing item comprises storing the adjustment to the pattern without modifying the displayed data structure based on the adjustment to the pattern is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means of temporarily storing data for the subsequent verification process), and amounts to mere data storage, which is a form of extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the processor (generic computer) is only being used as a tool in the storing, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding storing more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (recording information). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the steps of receiving input (e.g. receiving first user input via an interface; receiving second user input associated with at least one of the plurality of interactive user interface elements; receiving third user input via the interface) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving data for the displaying / adjusting / verification processes), and also amounts to mere data gathering / receiving data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the user interface, interactive user interface elements (general computer components) are only being used as a tool in the receiving, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding receiving more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (i.e. obtaining data / obtaining inputs). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the steps of displaying a data structure / pattern (e.g. displaying a data structure comprising a plurality of interactive user interface elements on the interface, wherein the plurality of interactive user interface elements are displayed in a pattern on the interface, and wherein the pattern indicates a hierarchical relationship of an organization department) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting / presenting results of the first input), and also amounts to mere outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the interface, interactive user interface elements (general computer components) are only being used as a tool in the displaying, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding displaying more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (i.e. presenting information). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the activity of recording the adjustment (e.g. generate a processing item that records the adjustment to the pattern ) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing a record of the adjustment), and also amounts to mere data storage / electronic record keeping, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the processor (generic computer) is only being used as a tool in the recording, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding recording more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (i.e. documenting a change). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (interface, interactive interface elements, memory, processor); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (outputting data, data gathering, electronic record keeping / data storage). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a user interface, interactive user interface elements, memory, and processor to perform receiving first user input…, displaying a data structure… wherein the elements are displayed in a pattern… and wherein the pattern indicates a hierarchal relationship of an organization department, receiving second user input… second user input indicates an adjustment to the pattern…, generating a processing item that records the adjustment…, receiving third user input… triggering a verification process…, executing the processing item to implement the adjustment…, approval and completion of the verification process amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the displaying information are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means of displaying / presenting / outputting of information), and amounts to mere outputting data / transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. processor, interface) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these displaying steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. outputting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0073], ¶[0102-103] describing the element of displaying a personnel change status, and processing item status at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the storing are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means of temporarily storing data for the subsequent verification process), and amounts to mere data storage, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. processor) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these storing steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data storage) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0063], ¶[0097] describing the additional element of recording an adjustment record for an approval flow that is not implemented right away at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the receiving input are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving data for the displaying / adjusting / verification processes), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of receiving data / data gathering, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. user interface, interactive user interface elements) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity for other tasks (i.e. to transmit data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these receiving steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information (Versata). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the displaying a data structure / pattern are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting / presenting results with the first input), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of outputting data, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. user interface, interactive user interface elements) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity for other tasks (i.e. to transmit data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these displaying steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. outputting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), a web browser’s back and forward button functionality (Internet Patent Corp), arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information (Versata). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0057-58], ¶[0063] describing the element of displaying an adjustment interface in response to a first operation event (e.g. triggering a ‘Personnel Management’ control) according to a hierarchal relationship of the organization department, and the patterns of the organization departments can be displayed in a tree structure diagram at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the recording the adjustment are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing a record of the adjustment), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of electronic record keeping / data storage, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. processor) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity for other tasks (i.e. to store data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, this recording activity is also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. record keeping) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, and using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as outputting data and storing data. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to make adjustments to the structure of an organizational hierarchy), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a commercial / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claims 1, 35-36 and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-18, 20-23, and 34. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claim 2: First, the limitations wherein at least one of the following is satisfied: the organization department is currently in an activated status; the organization department is within a scope of authority of a current user; the pattern is in a form of a tree structure diagram according to the hierarchical relationship of the organization department merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitation a name, a head, and a number of department members of the organization department is displayed via the interface; and a search control is displayed via the interface for searching according to the organization department or the head are further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the interface and search control are computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer / general computer component. Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity, note that the steps of displaying here are recited at such a high level of generality they also amount to mere outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application; and these displaying steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. outputting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information (Versata). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. EXAMINER’S NOTE: As presently claimed only one of the claim 2 limitations is required and as such, if any one of these limitations does not provide a practical application or significantly more than similar to the independent claims this claim remains directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more, because under broadest reasonable interpretation that particular claim limitation (that does not provide a practical application or significantly more) may be the only limitation present in an embodiment introduced by claim 2.
Dependent claim 4: The limitations wherein generating the processing item comprises: in response to a trigger operation on a first control of a first pattern, creating a subordinate department of the organization department corresponding to the first pattern and displaying a pattern of the created subordinate department are further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of a first control is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity, note that the step of displaying here is recited at such a high level of generality it also amounts to mere outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application; and this displaying step is also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. outputting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information (Versata). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5: First, the limitation wherein the first preset condition comprises at least one of the following: the organization department is in an activated status, the organization department has no deactivated version in future, and the organization department is not in a deactivation processing flow merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitation wherein if the organization department corresponding to the first pattern satisfies a first preset condition, displaying the first control; otherwise, the first control is not displayed or cannot be triggered is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the first control is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7: The limitations wherein if the pattern is triggered, displaying an information interface of the organization department corresponding to the triggered pattern, wherein information of the organization department corresponding to the triggered pattern is displayed in the information interface, wherein at least one of the following is displayed in the information interface: basic information of the organization department, department members of the organization department, and subordinate departments of the organization department are further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of an information interface is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity, note that the step of displaying here is recited at such a high level of generality it also amounts to mere outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application; and this displaying step is also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. outputting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information (Versata). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9: The limitations wherein at least one of the following is satisfied: a second control is displayed in the information interface, and the second control is configured to edit the basic information after being triggered; a third control associated with a department member is displayed in the information interface, and the third control is configured to perform personnel change processing on the department member; among the department members displayed in the information interface, the department member in a personnel change status is preferentially displayed; among the subordinate departments displayed in the information interface, a subordinate department adjusted in the processing item is preferentially displayed; a fourth control associated with the subordinate department is displayed in the information interface, and the fourth control is configured to edit the subordinate department after being triggered; if at least two subordinate departments displayed in the information interface are selected, displaying a fifth control configured to edit the selected at least two subordinate departments in batch after being triggered are further directed to a method of organizing human activity (business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of a second control, third control, fourth control, fifth control, information interface are computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. EXAMINER’S NOTE: As presently claimed only one of the claim 9 limitations is required and as such, if any one of these limitations does not provide a practical application or significantly more than similar to the independent claims this claim remains directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more, because under broadest reasonable interpretation that particular claim limitation (that does not provide a practical application or significantly more) may be the only limitation present in an embodiment introduced by claim 9.
Dependent claim 10: The limitations wherein at least one of the following is satisfied: if the subordinate department displayed in the information interface satisfies a second preset condition, displaying the second control; otherwise, the second control is not displayed or cannot be triggered;
if the selected subordinate department satisfies the second preset condition, displaying the fifth control; otherwise, the fifth control is not displayed or cannot be triggered, wherein the second preset condition comprises at least one of the following: the subordinate department is in an activated status, the subordinate department is not in a deactivation processing item, and the subordinate department is not in a change processing item are further directed to a method of organizing human activity (business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of a second control, fifth control, information interface are computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. EXAMINER’S NOTE: As presently claimed only one of the claim 10 limitations is required and as such, if any one of these limitations does not provide a practical application or significantly more than similar to the independent claims this claim remains directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more, because under broadest reasonable interpretation that particular claim limitation (that does not provide a practical application or significantly more) may be the only limitation present in an embodiment introduced by claim 10.
Dependent claim 12: The limitations wherein generating the processing item comprises: in response to dragging a first pattern to be under a second pattern, adjusting the organization department corresponding to the first pattern as a subordinate department of the organization department corresponding to the second pattern are further directed to a method of organizing human activity (business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity, note that these steps of dragging and adjusting here are recited at such a high level of generality they also represent computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information (Versata). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13: The limitations wherein at least one of the following is satisfied; otherwise, the dragging of the first pattern fails, or the dragging of the first pattern fails and a corresponding first prompt information is displayed, the organization department corresponding to the first pattern is in an activated status, the organization department corresponding to the first pattern is not a root node organization department, the organization department corresponding to the first pattern is not in a change processing flow, the organization department corresponding to the first pattern is not in a deactivation processing flow, the organization department corresponding to the second pattern is in an activated status, the organization department corresponding to the second pattern is not a direct superior department of the organization department corresponding to the first pattern, the organization department corresponding to the second pattern is not the subordinate department of the organization department corresponding to the first pattern, and a current user has a first authority with respect to the organization department corresponding to the second pattern are further directed to a method of organizing human activity (business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity, note that these steps of dragging are recited at such a high level of generality they also represent computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information (Versata). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14: The limitation wherein after adjusting the organization department corresponding to the first pattern as the subordinate department of the organization department corresponding to the second pattern, displaying a first mark in an associated area of the first pattern, wherein the first mark is configured to identify that the organization department corresponding to the first pattern has changed is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity, note that the step of displaying here is recited at such a high level of generality it also amounts to mere outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application; and this displaying step is also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. outputting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information (Versata). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15: The limitations wherein generating the processing item comprises: in response to dragging a subordinate department displayed in an information interface to be under a third pattern, adjusting the dragged subordinate department as the subordinate department of the organization department corresponding to the third pattern, wherein at least one of the following is satisfied; otherwise, the dragging of the subordinate department fails, or the dragging of the subordinate department fails and a corresponding second prompt information is displayed, the dragged subordinate department is in an activated status, the dragged subordinate department is not in a deactivation processing flow, the dragged subordinate department is not in a change processing flow; the organization department corresponding to the third pattern is in an activated status, the organization department corresponding to the third pattern is not a direct superior department of the dragged subordinate department, the organization department corresponding to the third pattern is not a subordinate department of the dragged subordinate department are further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the information interface is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity, note that these steps of dragging are recited at such a high level of generality they also represent computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information (Versata). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea
Dependent claim 17: The limitations wherein, after dragging the subordinate department to be under the organization department corresponding to the third pattern, determining whether the organization department corresponding to the third pattern satisfies a third preset condition; and if the organization department corresponding to the third pattern does not satisfy the third preset condition, sending a third prompt information; the third preset condition comprises at least one of the following: the organization department corresponding to the third pattern is not in a deactivation processing flow, and the organization department corresponding to the third pattern has no deactivated version in future are further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity, note that these steps of dragging and sending are recited at such a high level of generality and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. outputting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information (Versata). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18: The limitations wherein displaying at least one of the following in the pattern or in an associated area of the pattern: a sixth control configured to activate the organization department, a seventh control configured to disactivate the organization department, and an eighth control configured to delete the organization department, wherein at least one of the following is satisfied:
if the organization department corresponding to the pattern is in a deactivated status, displaying the sixth control; otherwise, the sixth control is not displayed; if the organization department corresponding to the pattern satisfies a fourth preset condition, displaying the seventh control; otherwise, the seventh control is not displayed or the seventh control is unavailable, wherein the fourth preset condition comprises at least one of the following: the organization department is in an activated status, the organization department is not in a deactivation processing flow, the organization department is not in a change processing flow, the organization department has no activated version in future, the organization department has no subordinate department activated currently and activated in future, the organization department has no current employee and future employee, the organization department has no department member in a personnel change status; if the organization department corresponding to the pattern satisfies a fifth preset condition, displaying the eighth control; otherwise, the eighth control is not displayed or the eighth control is unavailable, wherein the eighth control comprises at least one of the following: the organization department is newly created in the first processing item, the organization department has no subordinate department, the organization department has no department member in a personnel change status are further directed to a method of organizing human activity (business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the sixth control, seventh control, eighth control are computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 20: First, the limitations wherein at least one of the following is satisfied: saving the first processing item for adjusting the pattern in real time or at fixed time; if an adjustment of the pattern is exited before a user saves the first processing item, displaying a saving interface configured to save the processing item represents an additional element (extra-solution data storage, electronic record keeping) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. The saving interface (general computer component) represents using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to store data). Furthermore, these steps of saving are recited at such a high level of generality and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. storing data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Second, the limitations if the adjustment of the pattern is exited after the user saves the first processing item, displaying a fourth prompt information; if the adjustment of the pattern is entered again after an adjustment interface of the organizational structure is abnormally exited, displaying a continuous processing interface configured to determine whether to continue to execute the processing item are further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of an adjustment interface and continuous processing interface are computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. EXAMINER’S NOTE: As presently claimed only one of the claim 20 limitations is required and as such, if any one of these limitations does not provide a practical application or significantly more than similar to the independent claims this claim remains directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more, because under broadest reasonable interpretation that particular claim limitation (that does not provide a practical application or significantly more) may be the only limitation present in an embodiment introduced by claim 20.
Dependent claim 21: The limitations wherein after triggering the pattern, displaying an information interface of the organization department, wherein a department member is displayed in the information interface of the organization department, and at least one of the following is satisfied: the department member has an associated third control configured to perform personnel change processing on the department member; the department member has an associated ninth control configured to select the department member; and after the ninth control is selected, displaying a tenth control configured to perform personnel change processing on the selected department member associated with the ninth control; if the department member is dragged to be under a target pattern as displayed, performing personnel change processing on the dragged department member according to the organization department associated with the target pattern are further directed to a method of organizing human activity (business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the information interface, third control, ninth control, tenth control are computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity, note that these steps of dragging and displaying are recited at such a high level of generality and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. outputting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information (Versata). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 22: The limitations wherein at least one of the following is satisfied: if the department member satisfies a sixth preset condition, displaying the associated third control; otherwise, hiding the third control or the third control being unavailable; if the department member satisfies the sixth preset condition, displaying the associated ninth control; otherwise, hiding the ninth control or the ninth control being unavailable; after triggering the tenth control, if the selected ninth control does not satisfy the sixth preset condition, displaying a fifth prompt information without performing personnel change processing; and if the organization department associated with the target pattern does not satisfy a seventh preset condition, displaying a sixth prompt information without performing personnel change processing are further directed to a method of organizing human activity (business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the third control, ninth control, tenth control are computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity, note that these steps of displaying prompt information are recited at such a high level of generality and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. outputting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. EXAMINER’S NOTE: As presently claimed only one of the claim 22 limitations is required and as such, if any one of these limitations does not provide a practical application or significantly more than similar to the independent claims this claim remains directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more, because under broadest reasonable interpretation that particular claim limitation (that does not provide a practical application or significantly more) may be the only limitation present in an embodiment introduced by claim 22.
Dependent claim 23: The limitations wherein the sixth preset condition comprises at least one of the following: the department member has no personnel change processing item, the department member has no resignation processing item, and the department member has no ineffective employment item; the seventh preset condition comprises at least one of the following: the organization department associated with the target pattern is in an activated status, the organization department associated with the target pattern is not the organization department to which the dragged department member currently belongs, the organization department associated with the target pattern has no deactivated version in future, and the organization department associated with the target pattern has no deactivation processing item merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 34: The limitation wherein after triggering the processing flow of the processing item, the method further comprises: in response to a generation of a processing result of the processing item, sending a notification message to an initiator of the processing item, wherein the notification message is configured for viewing a detail of the processing result after being triggered represents an additional element (extra-solution transmitting data of the processing results) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the sending a notification step is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), using a telephone for image transmission (TLI Communications), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1, 35-36, and the dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-18, 20-23, and 34 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-18, 20-23, and 34-36 are ineligible.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 non-obviousness.
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, 7, 9, 12-13, 15, 20, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Republic of China patent publication CN113255302 A (Item #7 on IDS submitted on 2 August 2024) to Yu et al. in view of US patent publication 8,478,616 B2 to De Klerk et al. in view of US patent application publication 2023/0342725 A1 to Marsden et al.
Claim 1:
Yu, as shown, teaches the following:
A method for improving adjustment of data structures, comprising:
in response to receiving first user input via an interface displaying a data structure comprising a plurality of interactive user interface elements on the interface, wherein the plurality of interactive user interface elements are displayed in a pattern on the interface, and wherein the pattern indicates a hierarchical relationship of an organization department (Yu pg. 5 ln 12-24, pg. 9 ln 1-23, pg. 10 ln 18-21, pg. 16 ln 3-5 and 19-25 details customizing the display style of an organizational architecture diagram (i.e. first input), acquiring the pre-set organizational architecture pattern and diagram and presenting it to a user, the organizational architecture diagram is presented as a dendrogram (i.e. hierarchal relationship) with root / child levels, and the nodes in the diagram may include departments under a business);
receiving second user input associated with at least one of the plurality of interactive user interface elements, wherein the second user input indicates an adjustment to the pattern in which the plurality of interactive user interface elements are displayed (Yu claim 3, pg. 4 ln 18-28, pg. 5 ln 12-24, pg. 9 ln 11-23, pg. 16 ln 3-5 and 19-25 details displaying editing effects / an editing unit for the user to edit the organizational diagram through the display and performing an editing operation on the organizational architecture diagram, adding nodes / modifying nodes / moving nodes to change upper and lower relationships between nodes, and clicking on a confirmation button to confirm the edit information);
generating a processing item that records the adjustment to the pattern in which the plurality of interactive user interface elements are displayed (Yu pg. claim 2, pg. 8 ln 14-22, pg. 11 ln 17-24, pg. 14 ln 21 through pg. 15 ln 14 details adding the edited matter directly to the ‘applicant approval workflow’ / flow approval, recording the edits / changes in an ‘organizational change applicant’ for subsequent approval),
wherein generating the processing item comprises storing the adjustment to the pattern without modifying the displayed data structure based on the adjustment to the pattern (Yu claim 2, pg. 15 ln 12-16 details creating an organizational change applicant / application in accordance with the editing instructions recording the editing events (i.e. storing), determining whether the organizational change applicant / application is approved, and if so, then updating an organizational architecture database table of the organizational architecture graph according to the edit event presenting the determined organizational architecture graph in the front end page according to the updated organizational architecture database table, i.e. the adjusted pattern (organizational change applicant / application) is recorded / stored independent of the displayed data structure and the data structure is not modified until the change is approved);
With respect to the following:
in response to receiving third user input via the interface, triggering a verification process associated with the processing item;
displaying information indicating a status of the verification process via the interface,
Yu, as shown in claim 2, pg. 11 ln 5-24, pg. 15 ln 11-15 details the user entering their editing instructions (i.e. third input), creating an ‘organizational change applicant’ (i.e. processing item) that is in accordance with the editing instructions and is later determined whether it is approved or not (i.e. verification process associated with the processing item), highly suggesting but not explicitly stating in response to receiving third user input via the interface, triggering a verification process associated with the processing item. Also, pg. 15 ln 14-23 details determining whether the organizational change application (applicant) is approved and if so, updating the organizational architecture database table of the organizational architecture graph in the front-end page according to the updated table and rendering the new data, but does not explicitly state displaying information indicating a status of the verification process via the interface. However, De Klerk teaches these limitations, first with a user submitting a request for change (i.e. third user input), which then sends the request (i.e. triggers a verification process) to the Change Manager to perform an initial accept or reject of the change request (De Klerk Fig 22, col 26 ln 29-38); and second, notifying staff when they have change-related tasks and the requestor on the progress of their request for change, tasks approvals are displayed under the approvals tab for select members, after final approval changing the status to Approved and a notification of the approval is sent to the requestor (De Klerk col 43 ln 50-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in response to receiving third user input via the interface, triggering a verification process associated with the processing item; and displaying information indicating a status of the verification process via the interface as taught by De Klerk with the teachings of Yu, with the motivation to “easily develop business applications using a graphical user interface” and “notify staff when they have change-related tasks and the requestor on the progress of their Request for Change” (De Klerk col 1 ln 14-21, col 43 ln 50-54). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in response to receiving third user input via the interface, triggering a verification process associated with the processing item; and displaying information indicating a status of the verification process via the interface as taught by De Klerk in the system of Yu, 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. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to the following:
wherein the verification process evaluates the processing item to determine if the adjustment to the pattern would cause a structural conflict in the data structure; and
Yu, as shown in claim 2, pg. 13 ln 5-11, pg. 15 ln 14-16 details the organizational change applicant / application must be approved before the organizational architecture database table of the organizational architecture graph is updated according to the edit event (i.e. verification process evaluates the processing item and the adjustment to the pattern in the data structure), and rules are in place prior to saving the edits (i.e. processing item) earlier in the process with restriction rules; but does not explicitly state that the verification process evaluates the processing item to determine if the adjustment would cause a structural conflict in the data structure. However, Marsden teaches this limitation, before committing any version changes of the project, conflicts are identified (i.e. evaluating the processing item) and presented to the user that must be resolved before completing the update (Marsden Fig 33, ¶[0009], ¶[0206-209]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the verification process evaluates the processing item to determine if the adjustment to the pattern would cause a structural conflict in the data structure as taught by Marsden with the teachings of Yu in view of De Klerk, with the motivation to be “confident the variation is an improvement” and “ensure the best versions are all within a single coherent dataflow that actually took place” (Marsden ¶[0009]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the verification process evaluates the processing item to determine if the adjustment to the pattern would cause a structural conflict in the data structure as taught by Marsden in the system of Yu in view of De Klerk, 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. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Yu (in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden) also teaches the following
executing the processing item to implement the adjustment to the pattern in response to approval and completion of the verification process (Yu pg. 11 ln 9-24, pg. 15 ln 11-17 details determining whether the organizational change applicant / application is approved and if so then updating the organizational architecture database table of the organizational architecture graph according to the edited matter and presenting the graph in the front-end page according to the updated table).
Claim 2:
Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Yu also teaches the following:
wherein at least one of the following is satisfied:
the organization department is currently in an activated status (Yu pg. 10 ln 28 through pg. 11 ln 5 details when the user clicks on the expansion display of a subordinate node (i.e. activated status) the computer device adaptively adjusts the position of the other notes so that the subordinate node obtains sufficient display area to display the node data, and performing an editing operation in the front-end page);
the organization department is within a scope of authority of a current user (Yu pg. 10 ln 27-28, pg. 13 ln 12-14 details subordinate nodes of the organizational architecture graph may be hidden, and including a business check to check that the user entering the edit instruction has permission to edit the organizational architecture graph, and if not revoke the editing operation requested by the user);
the pattern is in a form of a tree structure diagram according to the hierarchical relationship of the organization department (Yu pg. 9 ln 20-25, pg. 10 ln 18-19, pg. 11 ln 3 through 5 details the architectural diagram style may be in the form of a dendrogram (i.e. hierarchal tree), may include departments in a business, and may be edited through the front end page);
a name, a head, and a number of department members of the organization department is displayed via the interface (Yu pg. 10 ln 18-28 details the node data displayed may include a node name, a principal post of a department manager, and department having a number of 15 people); and
a search control is displayed via the interface for searching according to the organization department or the head.
Claim 4:
Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Yu also teaches the following:
wherein generating the processing item comprises:
in response to a trigger operation on a first control of a first pattern, creating a subordinate department of the organization department corresponding to the first pattern and displaying a pattern of the created subordinate department (Yu pg. 2 ln 9-18 (claim 3), pg. 4 ln 25-26, pg. 9 ln 11-15, pg. 10 ln 18-19 details during the editing operation receiving a new node instruction entered by the user on the organizational architecture graph, and receiving / changing upper and lower level (i.e. subordinate) relationships between other nodes which include business departments).
Claim 7:
Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Yu also teaches the following:
wherein if the pattern is triggered, displaying an information interface of the organization department corresponding to the triggered pattern, wherein information of the organization department corresponding to the triggered pattern is displayed in the information interface (Yu pg. 10 ln 18 through pg. 11 ln 2 details nodes may include departments, and when the user clicks on the expansion display subordinate node, the computer adaptively adjusts the position of the other nodes so that the subordinate node obtains sufficient display area),
wherein at least one of the following is displayed in the information interface:
basic information of the organization department (Yu pg. 10 ln 18-28 includes the name of a human resource department, principal post of a human resource department manager, number of people),
department members of the organization department (Yu pg. 10 ln 18-28 details the number of people in a department), and
subordinate departments of the organization department (Yu pg. 10 ln 18 through pg. 11 ln 2 details nodes may include departments, and when the user clicks on the expansion display subordinate node, the computer adaptively adjusts the position of the other nodes so that the subordinate node obtains sufficient display area).
Claim 9:
Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 7. Yu also teaches the following:
wherein at least one of the following is satisfied:
a second control is displayed in the information interface, and the second control is configured to edit the basic information after being triggered (Yu pg. 9 ln 11-15 details receiving node data for a target node that may include the name of the node, type, or upper / lower level nodes of the target node);
a third control associated with a department member is displayed in the information interface, and the third control is configured to perform personnel change processing on the department member;
among the department members displayed in the information interface, the department member in a personnel change status is preferentially displayed;
among the subordinate departments displayed in the information interface, a subordinate department adjusted in the processing item is preferentially displayed (Yu pg. 10 ln 28 through pg. 11 ln 5 details when the user clicks on the expansion display of a subordinate node (i.e. activated status) the computer device adaptively adjusts the position of the other notes so that the subordinate node obtains sufficient display area to display the node data, and performing an editing operation in the front-end page);
a fourth control associated with the subordinate department is displayed in the information interface, and the fourth control is configured to edit the subordinate department after being triggered (Yu pg. 10 ln 28 through pg. 11 ln 5 details when the user clicks on the expansion display of a subordinate node (i.e. activated status) the computer device adaptively adjusts the position of the other notes so that the subordinate node obtains sufficient display area to display the node data, and performing an editing operation in the front-end page);
if at least two subordinate departments displayed in the information interface are selected, displaying a fifth control configured to edit the selected at least two subordinate departments in batch after being triggered.
Claim 12:
Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Yu also teaches the following:
wherein generating the processing item comprises:
in response to dragging a first pattern to be under a second pattern, adjusting the organization department corresponding to the first pattern as a subordinate department of the organization department corresponding to the second pattern (Yu pg. 2 ln 20-28 (claim 3), pg. 9 ln 11-27, pg. 10 ln 18-19, pg. 15 ln 25 through pg. 16 ln 7 details node modification instructions include carrying (i.e. dragging) target node location of the node to be moved resulting in an organizational architecture graph of modified node data, which nodes may include departments of a business and arranged with upper / lower node (i.e. subordinate / root & child) relationships, and rendering the node modification instructions).
Claim 13:
Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 12. Yu also teaches the following:
wherein at least one of the following is satisfied; otherwise, the dragging of the first pattern fails (Yu pg. 13 ln 13-14, pg. 15 ln 27 through pg. 16 ln 3 details a business check to check that the user entering the editing instructions has permission to edit the organizational architecture graph, and if not, revoke the editing operation requested by the user; and editing instructions including carrying (i.e. dragging) target node data for node to be modified), or the dragging of the first pattern fails and a corresponding first prompt information is displayed,
the organization department corresponding to the first pattern is in an activated status, the organization department corresponding to the first pattern is not a root node organization department, the organization department corresponding to the first pattern is not in a change processing flow, the organization department corresponding to the first pattern is not in a deactivation processing flow,
the organization department corresponding to the second pattern is in an activated status, the organization department corresponding to the second pattern is not a direct superior department of the organization department corresponding to the first pattern, the organization department corresponding to the second pattern is not the subordinate department of the organization department corresponding to the first pattern, and
a current user has a first authority with respect to the organization department corresponding to the second pattern (Yu pg. 10 ln 18-19, pg. 13 ln 13-14, pg. 15 ln 27 through pg. 16 ln 3 details a business check to check that the user entering the editing instructions has permission to edit the organizational architecture graph, and if not, revoke the editing operation requested by the user; and editing instructions including carrying (i.e. dragging) target node data for node to be modified, and the nodes may include departments).
Claim 15:
Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Yu also teaches the following:
wherein generating the processing item comprises:
in response to dragging a subordinate department displayed in an information interface to be under a third pattern, adjusting the dragged subordinate department as the subordinate department of the organization department corresponding to the third pattern (Yu pg. 2 ln 20-28 (claim 4), pg. 9 ln 23-25, pg. 19 ln 18-24, pg. 15 ln 25 through pg. 16 ln 8 details carrying (i.e. dragging) a node during node movement instructions on the organizational architecture diagram for the nodes to be modified to new coordinates resulting in an organizational architecture graph of modified node data on the front-end page, and coordinates of the node are set based on their relationship (e.g. superior-subordinate) between the target node and the largest node at the level, and nodes include departments),
wherein at least one of the following is satisfied; otherwise, the dragging of the subordinate department fails (Yu pg. 2 ln 9-18 (claim 3), pg. 13 ln 5-14 details performing business checks regarding editing, and moving nodes is performed by carrying, i.e. dragging), or the dragging of the subordinate department fails and a corresponding second prompt information is displayed,
the dragged subordinate department is in an activated status, the dragged subordinate department is not in a deactivation processing flow, the dragged subordinate department is not in a change processing flow;
the organization department corresponding to the third pattern is in an activated status, the organization department corresponding to the third pattern is not a direct superior department of the dragged subordinate department (Yu pg. 2 ln 9-18 (claim 3), pg. 13 ln 5-14 details performing business checks of the superordinates after the edit operation and verifying restrictions when (1) the superordinate of the group is determined to be a department, and moving nodes is performed by carrying, i.e. dragging), the organization department corresponding to the third pattern is not a subordinate department of the dragged subordinate department (Yu pg. 2 ln 9-18 (claim 3), pg. 13 ln 5-14 details performing business checks of the superordinates after the edit operation and verifying restrictions when (2) the superordinate of an administrative organization is a project team, and moving nodes is performed by carrying, i.e. dragging).
Claim 20:
Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Yu also teaches the following:
wherein at least one of the following is satisfied:
saving the first processing item for adjusting the pattern in real time or at fixed time (Yu pg. 13 ln 14-17 details after the front-end page exhibits the editing effect corresponding to the editing operation, the user may click on the save button to save this edit, which the computer in turn saves the editing operation, i.e. real-time);
if an adjustment of the pattern is exited before a user saves the first processing item, displaying a saving interface configured to save the processing item;
if the adjustment of the pattern is exited after the user saves the processing item, displaying a fourth prompt information;
if the adjustment of the pattern is entered again after an adjustment interface of the organizational structure is abnormally exited, displaying a continuous processing interface configured to determine whether to continue to execute the processing item.
Claim 34:
Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein after triggering the processing flow of the processing item, the method further comprises:
in response to a generation of a processing result of the processing item, sending a notification message to an initiator of the processing item, wherein the notification message is configured for viewing a detail of the processing result after being triggered.
Yu, as shown in pg. 15 ln 8-17 details triggering an approval change process flow after the user requests edits to the organizational architecture graph, determining whether the change approval of the edits is approved, and if so updating the database and organizational architecture graph where the approved results are viewed; but does not explicitly state in response to the result sending a notification message to an initiating of the processing item. However, De Klerk teaches this remaining limitation, following the approval by a manager, the status of the change request is changed to approved and the approval notification is sent to the requestor, with a release object created and linked to the change (De Klerk col 43 ln 55 through col 44 ln 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in response to a generation of a processing result of the processing item, sending a notification message to an initiator of the processing item, wherein the notification message is configured for viewing a detail of the processing result after being triggered as taught by De Klerk with the teachings of Yu (in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden), with the motivation to “notify staff when they have change-related tasks and the requestor on the progress of their Request for Change” (De Klerk col 43 ln 50-54). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in response to a generation of a processing result of the processing item, sending a notification message to an initiator of the processing item, wherein the notification message is configured for viewing a detail of the processing result after being triggered as taught by De Klerk in the system of Yu (in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden), 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. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 35:
Claim 35 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 35 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Claim 36:
Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden also teaches the following:
at least one memory and at least one processor (Yu pg. 17 ln 1-12 details a computing device with a memory and a processor);
wherein the at least one memory is configured to store program codes, and the at least one processor is configured to invoke the program codes stored in the at least one memory (Yu pg. 17 ln 1-12 details the memory stores a series of instructions that are executed on the computing device) to perform the method according to claim 1 (Yu claims 2-3, pg. 4 ln 18-28, pg. 5 ln 12-24, pg. 9 ln 1-23, pg. 10 ln 18-21, pg. 11 ln 5-24, pg. 14 ln 21 through pg. 15 ln 11-17, pg. 16 ln 3-5 and 19-25; and De Klerk Fig 22, col 26 ln 29-38, col 43 ln 50-67; and Marsden Fig 33, ¶[0009], ¶[0206-209] teach the method steps of claim 1 above).
Claims 5, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Republic of China patent publication CN113255302 A (Item #7 on IDS submitted on 2 August 2024) to Yu et al. in view of US patent publication 8,478,616 B2 to De Klerk et al. in view of US patent application publication 2021/0342725 A1 to Marsden et al., as applied to claims 4 / 9 / 15 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2016/0260063 A1 to Harris et al. (Item #1 on IDS submitted on 2 August 2024).
Claim 5:
Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 4. Yu also teaches the following:
wherein if the organization department corresponding to the first pattern satisfies a first preset condition, displaying the first control; otherwise, the first control is not displayed or cannot be triggered (Yu pg. 13 ln 4-14 details performing business checks on the editing operations to check that editing operation complies with preset restriction rules, and if rules are not met the edits are allowed, and if rules are not met then edits are undone / reverted to the previous organizational architecture graph / revoked editing operation requested by user),
Yu does not explicitly state, but Harris teaches the following:
wherein the first preset condition comprises at least one of the following:
the organization department is in an activated status (Harris Fig 7, ¶[0071], ¶[0074], claim 2, claim 12 details displaying a hierarchal tree of nodes including the organizational structure and its particular parent or divisions (i.e. departments) and whether or not they are active, existing nodes; and permitting drag and drop elements into hierarchal formats by updating existing nodes, movable and definable nodes are initially undefined nodes (i.e. not activated) until they are populated with information by the user (i.e. activated) to create the movable and definable nodes),
the organization department has no deactivated version in future, and
the organization department is not in a deactivation processing flow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first preset condition comprises… the organization department is in an activated status as taught by Harris with the teachings of Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, with the motivation to “graphically represent[] the management structure of an organization” that is “very useful as aides” (Harris ¶[0002]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first preset condition comprises… the organization department is in an activated status as taught by Harris in the system of Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, 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. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 10:
Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 9. Yu also teaches the following:
wherein at least one of the following is satisfied:
if the subordinate department displayed in the information interface satisfies a second preset condition, displaying the second control; otherwise, the second control is not displayed or cannot be triggered (Yu pg. 13 ln 4-14 details performing business checks on the editing operations to check that editing operation complies with preset restriction rules including superordinate / upper level restrictions, and if rules are not met the edits are allowed, and if rules are not met then edits are undone / reverted to the previous organizational architecture graph / revoked editing operation requested by user);
if the selected subordinate department satisfies the second preset condition, displaying the fifth control; otherwise, the fifth control is not displayed or cannot be triggered (Yu pg. 13 ln 4-14 details performing business checks on the editing operations to check that editing operation complies with preset restriction rules including superordinate / upper level restrictions, and if rules are not met the edits are allowed, and if rules are not met then edits are undone / reverted to the previous organizational architecture graph / revoked editing operation requested by user),
Yu does not explicitly state, but Harris teaches the following:
wherein the second preset condition comprises at least one of the following:
the subordinate department is in an activated status (Harris Fig 7, ¶[0071], ¶[0074], claim 2, claim 12 details displaying a hierarchal tree of nodes including the organizational structure and its particular parent (i.e. department) or divisions (i.e. subordinate department) and whether or not they are active, existing nodes; and permitting drag and drop elements into hierarchal formats by updating existing nodes, movable and definable nodes are initially undefined nodes (i.e. not activated) until they are populated with information by the user (i.e. activated) to create the movable and definable nodes),
the subordinate department is not in a deactivation processing item, and
the subordinate department is not in a change processing item.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first preset condition comprises… the subordinate department is in an activated status as taught by Harris with the teachings of Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, with the motivation to “graphically represent[] the management structure of an organization” that is “very useful as aides” (Harris ¶[0002]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first preset condition comprises… the subordinate department is in an activated status as taught by Harris in the system of Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, 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. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 17:
Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 15. Yu also teaches the following:
wherein,
after dragging the subordinate department to be under the organization department corresponding to the third pattern, determining whether the organization department corresponding to the third pattern satisfies a third preset condition; and if the organization department corresponding to the third pattern does not satisfy the third preset condition, sending a third prompt information (Yu pg. 9 ln 23-26, pg. 10 ln 18-22, pg. 13 ln 4-14 details performing business checks on the editing operations to check that editing operation complies with preset restriction rules including superordinate / upper level restrictions, and if rules are not met the edits are allowed, and if rules are not met then edits are undone / reverted to the previous organizational architecture graph / revoked editing operation requested by user; and editing operations include carrying (i.e. dragging) nodes which include departments);
Yu does not explicitly state, but Harris teaches the following:
the third preset condition comprises at least one of the following:
the organization department corresponding to the third pattern is not in a deactivation processing flow (Harris Fig 7, ¶[0071], ¶[0074], claim 2, claim 12 details displaying a hierarchal tree of nodes including the organizational structure and its particular parent (i.e. department) or divisions (i.e. subordinate department) and whether or not they are active, existing nodes (i.e. active / not deactivated); and permitting drag and drop elements into hierarchal formats by updating existing nodes, movable and definable nodes are initially undefined nodes (i.e. not activated / deactivated) until they are populated with information by the user (i.e. activated / not deactivated) to create the movable and definable nodes), and the organization department corresponding to the third pattern has no deactivated version in future.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the third preset condition comprises at least one of the following: the organization department corresponding to the third pattern is not in a deactivation processing flow as taught by Harris with the teachings of Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, with the motivation to “graphically represent[] the management structure of an organization” that is “very useful as aides” (Harris ¶[0002]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the third preset condition comprises at least one of the following: the organization department corresponding to the third pattern is not in a deactivation processing flow as taught by Harris in the system of Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, 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. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 14 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Republic of China patent publication CN113255302 A (Item #7 on IDS submitted on 2 August 2024) to Yu et al. in view of US patent publication 8,478,616 B2 to De Klerk et al. in view of US patent application publication 2021/0342725 A1 to Marsden et al., as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2013/0002676 A1 to Ziemann.
Claim 14:
Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, as shown, teaches the limitations of claim 12. Yu does not explicitly state, but Ziemann teaches the following:
wherein after adjusting the organization department corresponding to the first pattern as the subordinate department of the organization department corresponding to the second pattern,
displaying a first mark in an associated area of the first pattern, wherein the first mark is configured to identify that the organization department corresponding to the first pattern has changed (Ziemann Fig 17-18, ¶[0040], ¶[0147-148] details departments within a company and the individuals within the org chart, and after updating an organization chart (e.g. adding a new subordinate record of Amy Wells under Phil Marks), the updated node records that are changed on-screen are both updated in color and with notes (e.g. ‘Add Amy Wells to the Acme, Inc. org chart?’ is displayed at the top of the org chart, ‘Amy will be added as a Salesforce Contact’ is displayed under the Amy Wells node)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include displaying a first mark in an associated area of the first pattern, wherein the first mark is configured to identify that the organization department corresponding to the first pattern has changed as taught by Ziemann with the teachings of Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, with the motivation of “updating and visualizing information stored in the database system” (Ziemann ¶[0003]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include displaying a first mark in an associated area of the first pattern, wherein the first mark is configured to identify that the organization department corresponding to the first pattern has changed as taught by Ziemann in the system of Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, 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. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 21:
Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, as shown, teaches the limitations of claim 1. Yu also teaches the following:
wherein after triggering the pattern, displaying an information interface of the organization department (Yu pg. 9 ln 11-21, pg. 10 ln 18-25, pg. 15 ln 12-17 details updating the front-end page according to the updated organizational architecture database table following the approved edits, and nodes in the architectural graph include node data information including department, department manager, number of people),
wherein a department member is displayed in the information interface of the organization department (Yu pg. 10 ln 21-24 details the node data displayed in the organizational graph may include a principal post of a human resource department manager),
Yu does not explicitly state, but Ziemann teaches the following:
and at least one of the following is satisfied:
the department member has an associated third control configured to perform personnel change processing on the department member;
the department member has an associated ninth control configured to select the department member; and after the ninth control is selected, displaying a tenth control configured to perform personnel change processing on the selected department member associated with the ninth control;
if the department member is dragged to be under a target pattern as displayed, performing personnel change processing on the dragged department member according to the organization department associated with the target pattern (Ziemann Fig 17-18, ¶[0040], ¶[0146-148], ¶[0170-171] details departments within a company and the individuals within the org chart, and updating an organization chart by mouse clicking on Amy Wells (e.g. adding a new subordinate record of Amy Wells under Phil Marks), updating node records changed on-screen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include if the department member is dragged to be under a target pattern as displayed, performing personnel change processing on the dragged department member according to the organization department associated with the target pattern as taught by Ziemann with the teachings of Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, with the motivation of “updating and visualizing information stored in the database system” (Ziemann ¶[0003]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include if the department member is dragged to be under a target pattern as displayed, performing personnel change processing on the dragged department member according to the organization department associated with the target pattern as taught by Ziemann in the system of Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, 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. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 22:
Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden in view of Ziemann, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 21. Yu also teaches the following:
wherein at least one of the following is satisfied:
if the department member satisfies a sixth preset condition, displaying the associated third control; otherwise, hiding the third control or the third control being unavailable (Yu pg. 13 ln 3-14 details performing business checks on editing operations to check that edits comply with preset restriction rules, including whether the user entering the editing instruction has permission to edit the organization architecture graph and if not revoke the editing operation requested by the user);
if the department member satisfies the sixth preset condition, displaying the associated ninth control; otherwise, hiding the ninth control or the ninth control being unavailable;
after triggering the tenth control, if the selected ninth control does not satisfy the sixth preset condition, displaying a fifth prompt information without performing personnel change processing; and
if the organization department associated with the target pattern does not satisfy a seventh preset condition, displaying a sixth prompt information without performing personnel change processing (Yu pg. 13 ln 3-14 details performing business checks on editing operations to check that edits comply with preset restriction rules, including whether the superordinate of the group cannot be a department, and if it is determined to be a department then the edit is revoked).
Claim 23:
Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden in view of Ziemann, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 22. Yu also teaches the following:
wherein the sixth preset condition comprises at least one of the following: the department member has no personnel change processing item (Yu pg. 13 ln 3-14 details performing business checks on editing operations to check that edits comply with preset restriction rules, including whether the user entering the editing instruction has permission to edit the organization architecture graph and if not revoke the editing operation requested by the user), the department member has no resignation processing item, and the department member has no ineffective employment item;
the seventh preset condition comprises at least one of the following: the organization department associated with the target pattern is in an activated status, the organization department associated with the target pattern is not the organization department to which the dragged department member currently belongs, the organization department associated with the target pattern has no deactivated version in future, and the organization department associated with the target pattern has no deactivation processing item.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Republic of China patent publication CN113255302 A (Item #7 on IDS submitted on 2 August 2024) to Yu et al. in view of US patent publication 8,478,616 B2 to De Klerk et al. in view of US patent application publication 2021/0342725 A1 to Marsden et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Republic of China patent publication CN113362021 (Item #8 on IDS submitted on 2 August 2024) to Deng et al.
Claim 18:
Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 1. Yu does not explicitly state, but Deng teaches the following:
wherein displaying at least one of the following in the pattern or in an associated area of the pattern:
a sixth control configured to activate the organization department (Deng Abstract, pg. 2 ln 26-28, details an organization mechanism that can enable an operation control on an organization list, configured to the state of the organization mechanism),
a seventh control configured to disactivate the organization department (Deng pg. 2 ln 23-25, details an organization mechanism that can deactivate an operation control on an organization list), and
an eighth control configured to delete the organization department (Deng Abstract, pg. 3 ln 1-2 details an organization mechanism that can delete an operation control on an organization list, configured according to the state of the organization),
wherein at least one of the following is satisfied:
if the organization department corresponding to the pattern is in a deactivated status, displaying the sixth control; otherwise, the sixth control is not displayed (Deng Abstract details when the organization mechanism is in a disabled state (i.e. deactivated), then the current management operation is an enabling operation control; similarly when the organization mechanism is in an enabled state then the current management operation control is a disable operation control);
if the organization department corresponding to the pattern satisfies a fourth preset condition, displaying the seventh control; otherwise, the seventh control is not displayed or the seventh control is unavailable, wherein the fourth preset condition comprises at least one of the following: the organization department is in an activated status, the organization department is not in a deactivation processing flow, the organization department is not in a change processing flow, the organization department has no activated version in future, the organization department has no subordinate department activated currently and activated in future, the organization department has no current employee and future employee, the organization department has no department member in a personnel change status;
if the organization department corresponding to the pattern satisfies a fifth preset condition, displaying the eighth control; otherwise, the eighth control is not displayed or the eighth control is unavailable, wherein the eighth control comprises at least one of the following: the organization department is newly created in the processing item, the organization department has no subordinate department, the organization department has no department member in a personnel change status.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein displaying at least one of the following in the pattern or in an associated area of the pattern: a sixth control configured to activate the organization department, a seventh control configured to disactivate the organization department, and an eighth control configured to delete the organization department, wherein at least one of the following is satisfied: if the organization department corresponding to the pattern is in a deactivated status, displaying the sixth control; otherwise, the sixth control is not displayed as taught by Deng with the teachings of Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, with the motivation to solve the problem that “organization architecture of existing project information management system does not allow the change after setting”, and “to provide an organization management method and apparatus… that overcome the above mentioned problems” (Deng pg. 2 ln 6-14). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein displaying at least one of the following in the pattern or in an associated area of the pattern: a sixth control configured to activate an organization department, a seventh control configured to disactivate an organization department, and an eighth control configured to delete an organization department, wherein at least one of the following is satisfied: if the organization department corresponding to the pattern is in a deactivated status, displaying the sixth control; otherwise, the sixth control is not displayed as taught by Deng in the system of Yu in view of De Klerk in view of Marsden, 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. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights