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 Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim rejections 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Claim rejections 35 USC 103 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that at least as amended in claim 1, the claim is not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Examiner respectfully submits that the claim is rejected in detail as below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 8:
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites “A computer-implemented method”. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore is a process.
Claim 8 recites “A system”. The claim recites the system comprising a memory and a processor wherein the memory includes instructions executable by the processor and therefore is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 1 and 8 recite the limitations “generating”, “generating” and “associating” which specifically recite “generating, by the server computing device and using the input information, a first data object that represents the first feature of the organization;” “generating, by the server computing device, a second data object based on second input information;” and “hierarchically associating, by the server computing device, the second data object with the first data object using the first input information and the second input information;” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other reciting a “server computing device”, a “client computing device”, a “memory” and a “processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “generating”, “generating” and “associating” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper generating using an input information, a first data object that represents a first feature of an organization, generating a second data object based on second input information, and generating a hierarchy which associates the second data object with the first data object using the first input information and the second input information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims 1 and 8 recite the additional elements “receiving, by a server computing device, first input information, from a first user using a client computing device, that corresponds to a first feature of an organization;” “storing, by the server computing device, metadata associated with a relationship between the first data object and the second data object in a first database during a first period;” “in response to a request from a second user to retrieve, during a second period and for the first period, a version of at least one of the first data object and the second data object, generating version information using at least the metadata;” “generating, by the server computing device, output information, based on the version information, the at least one of the first data object and the second data object, and contact information associated with the second user;” and “displaying, on the client computing device, the output information on a display.” The limitations amount to a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception includes collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results (See MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims 1 and 8 recites the limitation “receiving, by a server computing device, first input information, from a first user using a client computing device, that corresponds to a first feature of an organization;” The limitation amounts to well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions, e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). As discussed above, the additional elements of using a “server computing device”, a “client computing device”, a “memory” and a “processor” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “the first data object represents at least one physical attribute of the first feature of the organization.” The limitation amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “the first data object represents owner information associated with the first feature of the organization.” The limitation amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “the first feature of the organization includes an asset of the organization.” The limitation amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “the first feature of the organization includes a liability of the organization.” The limitation amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “the second data object represents a document associated with the first feature of the organization.” The limitation amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “the second data object represents a task associated with the first feature of the organization.” The limitation amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claims 15
Step 1:
Claim 15 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising executable instructions” and therefore is a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 15 recite the limitations “generating”, “generating” and “associating” which specifically recite “generating, using input information corresponding to a first feature of an organization, a first data object that represents the first features of the organization;” “generating a second data object based on second input information;” and “hierarchically associating the second data object with the first data object using the first input information and the second input information;” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other reciting a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and a “processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “generating”, “generating” and “associating” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper generating using an input information, a first data object that represents a first feature of an organization, generating a second data object based on second input information, and generating a hierarchy which associates the second data object with the first data object using the first input information and the second input information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim 15 recite the additional elements “in response to a request from a user to retrieve, during a second period and for a first period, a version of at least one of the first data object and the second data object, generating version information using at least metadata associated with the hierarchical association of the second data object with the first data object;” “generating, by a server computing device, output information, based on the version information, the at least one of the first data object and the second data object, and contact information associated with the user;” and “displaying the output information on a display.” The limitations amount to a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception includes collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results (See MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and a “processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art Brdiczka et al. (US 2014/0165195) teaches that system 102 collects data from sources such as online communities (e.g., Facebook®) and an organization's network (operation 202). The collected data includes organizational data, content, and metadata from all activities, including social network communications. Note that the data may include user communication and object access data. System 102 extracts semantic entities from the data, including person names, companies, specific actions, topics, and keywords (operation 204). System 102 can use natural language processing techniques to determine topics and sensitivity levels of objects and communications ([0033]). Brdiczka et al. also teaches that system 102 generates an activity graph and/or topic graphs using the extracted semantic information (operation 206) ([0035]). However, the prior arts of made record fail to teach storing, by the server computing device, metadata associated with a relationship between the first data object and the second data object in a first database during a first period; and in response to a request from a second user to retrieve, during a second period and for the first period, a version of at least one of the first data object and the second data object, generating version information using at least the metadata.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bufi et al. (US 2014/0067453) teaches shared hardware asset profile 130 is user specific data that specifies various attributes of the user in relation to shared hardware assets available for use within an organization and the usage thereof.
Martin et al. (US 2010/0251340) teaches that an access token is preferably revoked immediately or within a predetermined time period after the permission to access the user mobile device location is provided to the third party application program.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm EST.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
November 6, 2025