DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to Office action was received on April 7, 2026.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, all of the prior art claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the 101 claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action.
Regarding the 101 rejections, Applicant argues that the claims do not relate to certain method(s) of organizing human activity, such as managing human behavior. Examiner disagrees. Although Applicant’s claims are seemingly written in such a way as to de-emphasize any human involvement, the claims appear to clearly encompass application to monitoring human processing of tasks on a computing system. Even if a claim may have some statutory uses, a 101 rejection may still be proper when the claim encompasses non-statutory subject matter. For example, a claim to a computer-readable medium may receive a 101 rejection when it encompasses both a statutory non-transitory computer-readable medium and a non-statutory transitory computer-readable medium.
Taking that into account, the BACKGROUND section of Applicant’s specification reads: “In scenarios such as intra-team and inter-team collaboration, some items (for example approval tasks) and/or the like need to be processed. When processing the items, a processing staff needs to fully understand the items so that he/she may handle the items.” The last sentence of the SUMMARY section of Applicant’s specification states: “The method of information processing proposed by the embodiments of the present disclosure may issue a reminder when a path or a duration in which a processing staff processes the first item satisfies the judgment condition, so as to avoid a risk caused by abnormal processing in the processing of the first item by the processor.”
Therefore, we see that Applicant’s application was intended to at least encompass its application to management of processing of items by humans. Looking at representative claim 1, we see how, during processing of an item, it is determined if a details page associated with the item has been opened. If not, this may trigger a warning notification, since this may indicate that the item was processed carelessly without paying appropriate attention to relevant information in the details page. This would be completely applicable to a human worker, who may be tempted to rush to get work done. This is also relevant to the discussion of human workers in Applicant’s above-quoted BACKGROUND section.
Therefore, Examiner believes that Applicant’s claims fairly encompass managing human behavior, which falls under certain method(s) of organizing human activity, a type of abstract idea. This abstract idea is performed on generic computing components, without more. Thus, under USPTO 101 guidance, the claims are not currently eligible.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1, 17, and 18, Claim(s) 1, 17, and 18 recite(s):
- in response to processing of a first item, determining processing information of the first item, wherein the processing information comprises processing path information for processing the first item, wherein the processing path information indicates whether a details page associated with the first item was opened during the processing of the first item;
- determining whether the processing information satisfies a risk threshold, wherein the processing information satisfies the risk threshold when the processing information is associated with an abnormal information processing risk that exceeds the risk threshold;
- in response to the processing information satisfying the risk threshold, output first predetermined information, wherein the first predetermined information comprises a warning associated with the abnormal processing risk of the processing information.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): encompasses management of people acting in a computing workflow.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- detecting whether a page was opened; outputting via displaying on an interface of a terminal device; an electronic device comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor; wherein the at least one memory is configured to store program codes, and the at least one processor is configured to call the program codes stored in the at least one memory to perform acts; a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for storing program codes, the program codes, upon run by a processor, causing the processor to perform acts: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the 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. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2-15 and 19-21, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- enter a page (claims 3-4, 7-9, 12, and 20-21);
- stay on a page (claims 2-4, 6, 8, and 19-21);
- a page (claims 2-4, 6-9, 12, and 19-21);
- an open interface (claim 5);
- display a page (claim 7);
- terminals (claim 8);
- a printing result (claim 14);
- printing (claim 14).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 10 merely adds further steps to the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 17-21 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Grasselt, US 9922106 B2 (reallocating jobs for checking data quality).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JEFFREY 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.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights