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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX has been entered.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 4 and 9 are canceled.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are pending and have been examined.
This action is in reply to the papers filed on 11/21/2025 (effective filing date 09/13/2023).
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement has been filed.
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted: xxxxxxxx, has/have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Amendment
The present Office Action is based upon the original patent application filed on 09/10/2024 as modified by the amendment filed on 11/21/2025.
Reasons For Allowance
Prior-Art Rejection withdrawn
Claims xxx are allowed. The closest prior art (See PTO-892, Notice of References Cited) does not teach the claimed:
The invention teaches… and the prior-art teaches…, however, the prior-art does not teach…
The closest prior-art (xxx) teach the features as disclosed in Non-final Rejection (xxxx), however, these cited references do not teach and the prior-art does not teach at least the following:
determining, at a second time after associating the information corresponding to the first loyalty card with the logged location, that a second user computing device is located within a specified distance of the logged location using a second positioning system of the second user computing device; in response to determining that the second user computing device is located within the specified distance of the logged location of the first user computing device at the first time of detecting: retrieving information corresponding to a second loyalty card, the second loyalty card being associated with the merchant and the second user computing device; and displaying, by the second user computing device, data describing the second loyalty card.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101 - Withdrawn
Per Applicant’s amendments and arguments and considering new guidance in the MPEP, the rejections are withdrawn. Specifically, in Applicant’s Remarks (dated 03/14/2017, pgs. 8-11), Applicant traverses the 35 USC §101 rejections arguing that the amended claims recite new limitations that are not abstract, amount to significantly more, are directed to a practical application, etc… For example, Applicant argues….
In support of their arguments, Applicant cites to the following recent Fed. Cir. court cases (i.e., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, Berkheimer, Core Wireless, McRO, Enfish, Bascom, DDR, etc…).
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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims recite a method and system (backend system) for distributed organization construction.
Claim 1 recites [a] distributed organizational data construction method, applied to an organizational data construction backend, the distributed organizational data construction method comprising: Step (A): generating a plurality of organizational unit data, wherein each of the plurality of organizational unit data comprises one current level field and one superior level field; Step (B): transmitting the plurality of organizational unit data to different work devices; Step (C): receiving a plurality of filled-in organizational unit data, wherein the plurality of filled-in organizational unit data are transmitted by the plurality of work devices; Step (D): matching the current level fields and the superior level fields in the plurality of filled-in organizational unit data to generate an organizational chart; Step (E): receiving a leave request form transmitted from a leave requesting work device that is one of the plurality of work devices; and Step (F): transmitting the leave request form to at least one superior work device that is at least one of the plurality of work devices based on leave conditions, wherein the leave conditions comprise a leave type and number of days and the server determines, based on the leave type and the number of days, a number of approval levels required, and transmits the leave request to corresponding superior work devices of the number of approval levels.
The claims are being rejected according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 1-3 and 5 recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of a process. Claims 6-8 recite a backend system and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The following tables identify the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea. The column that identifies the additional elements will be relevant to the analysis in step 2A, prong two, and step 2B.
Claim 1: Identification of Abstract Idea and Additional Elements, using Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
Claim Limitation
Abstract Idea
Additional Element
1. A distributed organizational data construction method, applied to an organizational data construction backend, the distributed organizational data construction method comprising:
No additional elements are positively claimed.
Step (A): generating a plurality of organizational unit data, wherein each of the plurality of organizational unit data comprises one current level field and one superior level field;
This limitation includes the step(s) of: generating a plurality of organizational unit data, wherein each of the plurality of organizational unit data comprises one current level field and one superior level field.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information (e.g., receiving and transmitting information) in order to implement a backend system for distributed organizational data construction which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and/or
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
Step (B): transmitting the plurality of organizational unit data to different work devices;
This limitation includes the step(s) of: transmitting the plurality of organizational unit data to different work devices.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information (e.g., receiving and transmitting information) to implement a backend system for distributed organizational data construction which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and/or
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
Step (C): receiving a plurality of filled-in organizational unit data, wherein the plurality of filled-in organizational unit data are transmitted by the plurality of work devices;
This limitation includes the step(s) of: receiving a plurality of filled-in organizational unit data, wherein the plurality of filled-in organizational unit data are transmitted by the plurality of work devices.
But for the devices, this limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information (e.g., receiving and transmitting information) to implement a backend system for distributed organizational data construction which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and/or
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
data are transmitted by the plurality of work devices
Step (D): matching the current level fields and the superior level fields in the plurality of filled-in organizational unit data to generate an organizational chart;
This limitation includes the step(s) of: matching the current level fields and the superior level fields in the plurality of filled-in organizational unit data to generate an organizational chart.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information (e.g., receiving and transmitting information) to implement a backend system for distributed organizational data construction which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and/or
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
Step (E): receiving a leave request form transmitted from a leave requesting work device that is one of the plurality of work devices; and
This limitation includes the step(s) of: receiving a leave request form transmitted from a leave requesting work device that is one of the plurality of work devices.
But for the devices, this limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information (e.g., receiving and transmitting information) to implement a backend system for distributed organizational data construction which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and/or
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
receiving a leave request form transmitted from a leave requesting work device that is one of the plurality of work devices
Step (F): transmitting the leave request form to at least one superior work device that is at least one of the plurality of work devices based on leave conditions, wherein the leave conditions comprise a leave type and number of days and the server determines, based on the leave type and the number of days, a number of approval levels required, and transmits the leave request to corresponding superior work devices of the number of approval levels.
This limitation includes the step(s) of: transmitting the leave request form to at least one superior work device that is at least one of the plurality of work devices based on leave conditions, wherein the leave conditions comprise a leave type and number of days and the server determines, based on the leave type and the number of days, a number of approval levels required, and transmits the leave request to corresponding superior work devices of the number of approval levels.
But for the devices, this limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information (e.g., receiving and transmitting information) to implement a backend system for distributed organizational data construction which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and/or
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
transmitting the leave request form to at least one superior work device that is at least one of the plurality of work devices based on leave conditions, wherein the leave conditions comprise a leave type and number of days and the server determines, based on the leave type and the number of days, a number of approval levels required, and transmits the leave request to corresponding superior work devices…
As shown above, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract idea of implementing a backend system for distributed organizational data construction, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a mental process and/or a method of organizing human activity. Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional functional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: a device for receiving or transmitting information. Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extrasolution activity. (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle in to a patentable process.”).
The aforementioned claims also recite additional technical elements including: a device for implementing the method These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements listed above that relate to computing components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as communicating, receiving, processing, analyzing, and outputting/displaying data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. There is no technological problem that the claimed invention solves. Rather, the computer system is invoked merely as a tool. 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. Therefore, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field, apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease, apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s), and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
Next, under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Simply put, as noted above, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer (or any other technology), and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements relating to computing components amount to no more than applying the exception using a generic computing components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed computer components (i.e., additional elements) includes any generic computing components that are capable of being programmed to communicate, receive, send, process, analyze, output, or display data.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified as extra-solution activity, amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Capturing an image (code) with an RFID reader. Ritter, US Patent No. 7734507 (Col. 3, Lines 56-67); “RFID: Riding on the Chip” by Pat Russo. Frozen Food Age. New York: Dec. 2003, vol. 52, Issue 5; page S22.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Storing and retrieving information in memory. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Outputting/Presenting data to a user. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Using a machine learning model to determine user segment characteristics for an ad campaign. https://whites.agency/blog/how-to-use-machine-learning-for-customer-segmentation/.
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea), and are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Independent backend system claim 6 also contains the identified abstract ideas, with the additional elements of a work device which is a generic computer component and thus not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale above.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 further describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of the dependent claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Invention Could be Performed Manually
It is conceivable that the invention could be performed manually without the aid of machine and/or computer. For example, Applicant claims generating data, transmitting data, receiving data, and matching data fields. Each of these features could be performed manually and/or with the aid of a simple generic computer to facilitate the transmission of data.
See also Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., and In re Venner, which stand for the concept that automating manual activity and/or applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices to accomplish the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Here, applicant is merely claiming computers to facilitate and/or automate functions which used to be commonly performed by a human.
Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007) "[a]pplying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years…"). The combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is commonly available and understood in the art.
In In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958), the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04, III Automating a Manual Activity.
MPEP 2144.04 III - Automating a Manual Activity and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) further stand for and provide motivation for using technology, hardware, computer, or server to automate a manual activity.
Therefore, the Office finds no improvements to another technology or field, no improvements to the function of the computer itself, and no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no limitations in any of the claims that transform the exception (i.e., the abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
Claim Rejections - Not an Ordered Combination
None of the limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility, because taken as a whole, the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity.
Claim Rejections - Preemption
Allowing the claims, as presently claimed, would preempt others from implementing a method and system (backend system) for distributed organization construction. Furthermore, the claim language only recites the abstract idea of performing this method, there are no concrete steps articulating a particular way in which this idea is being implemented or describing how it is being performed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – software per se
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 6 is a backend system or apparatus claim wherein the body of claim 6 does not positively claim any structural features. Rather, the body of claim 6 is interpreted as purely software for performing the following steps: a data module for generating…; a transceiver module for transmitting…; and a matching module for matching… Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does NOT disclose any structural components for implementing these claimed modules. Therefore, claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is directed to software which is not a statutory class of invention.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function (claim 6 uses the nonce term “data module for…”);
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that” (claim 6 use a module for generating…; module for transmitting…; module for matching…); and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Per Applicant’s specification (PGPub. 2025/0086588 [0031]), the Office interprets the claimed “modules” as being some type of work device including a mobile device, laptop, desktop computer, tablet, or smart phone.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-3, 5, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Kaseda 2018/0137447; in view of Kumar 2005/0021646.
18/829,632 – Claim 1. (Currently Amended) Kaseda 2018/0137447 teaches A distributed organizational data construction method, applied to an organizational data construction backend, the distributed organizational data construction method comprising: Step (A): generating a plurality of organizational unit data, wherein each of the plurality of organizational unit data comprises one current level field and one superior level field (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0061 - data creation portion 202 then generates data that indicates] The personal data creation portion 202 then generates data that indicates the current date as a creation date and shows the information extracted. The personal data creation portion 202 then stores, as the personal data 6A, the data generated into a table corresponding to the organization of the personal data storage portion 201. [0067 - data creation portion 202 generates new personal data 6A, the change data creation portion 204 generates change data] When the personal data creation portion 202 generates new personal data 6A, the change data creation portion 204 generates change data 6B to store the change data 6B into the change data storage portion 203 in the following manner. [0080 - organizational chart generation portion 104 and the linking portion 105 generate a transition organizational chart 7B based on] The organizational chart generation portion 104 and the linking portion 105 generate a transition organizational chart 7B based on the personal data 6A and the change data 6B. The processing thereof is executed in the steps as depicted in FIG. 7. [0093 - configuration tables 6E1-6E3 shown in FIGS. 8A-8C are created as the configuration table 6E. … “first generation”, a “second generation”, . . . … “current generation” … the “first generation”, the “second generation”, and “third generation” …] The foregoing processing is performed, so that in this example the three configuration tables 6E1-6E3 shown in FIGS. 8A-8C are created as the configuration table 6E. Hereinafter, the periods are referred to as a “first generation”, a “second generation”, . . . , and so on in chronological order. The latest period is referred to as a “current generation”. The current generation is a third generation in this example. Each of the configuration tables 6E is set to correspond to a generation name. To be specific, the configuration tables 6E1, 6E2, and 6E3 are set to correspond to the “first generation”, the “second generation”, and “third generation”, respectively in this example.); Step (B): transmitting the plurality of organizational unit data to different work devices (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0044 - sends the transition organizational chart 7B to the terminal…] The organizational chart creation server 2A creates the transition organizational chart 7B in response to a request from the terminal 3 and sends the transition organizational chart 7B to the terminal 3.); Step (C): receiving a plurality of filled-in organizational unit data, wherein the plurality of filled-in organizational unit data are transmitted by the plurality of work devices (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0049 - receive the organizational chart … terminal 3 is, for example, a personal computer, a smartphone, a wearable terminal, or a tablet computer…] The terminal 3 is a client for the user to receive the organizational chart 7B. The terminal 3 has installed a web browser therein. The terminal 3 is, for example, a personal computer, a smartphone, a wearable terminal, or a tablet computer. Hereinafter, a case is described in which the terminal 3 is a tablet computer. [0073 - specification data receiving portion 103 receives the specification data 6C from the terminal …] With the organizational chart creation server 2A, the specification data receiving portion 103 receives the specification data 6C from the terminal 3.); Step (D): matching the current level fields and the superior level fields (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0065 - fields] The change data 6B indicates information related to the change, for example, indicates the following information. In the field of “date of change”, a date at which the corresponding change has been detected is indicated. In the field of “subject”, a subject to which the change has been made is indicated. In short, in this example, the subject indicates the name of a person to whom the personnel change has been made. [0066 - fields] In the fields of “pre-change” and “post-change”, a state of the subject before the change and a state of the subject after the change are indicated, respectively. In short, in this example, a department name of the corresponding person before the personnel change and a department name of the corresponding person after the personnel change are indicated, respectively.) in the plurality of filled-in organizational unit data (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0007 - retrieves item information matching a retrieving condition…] According to the technology, in a system for supporting an organization activity, an item information DB in a server computer stores item information including the identifiers of item participants. A personal information DB stores a plurality of pieces of personal attribute information in each organization individual. A personal relationship retrieving part responds to a user's retrieval request through a client terminal, retrieves item information matching a retrieving condition, extracts item participants in the information as persons with experience, retrieves personal information for each of the extracted persons with experience and a user from the personal information DB, extracts the user and the expert having at least one common attribute information, and transmits the extracted contents to a client terminal to display them (English abstract of Japanese Laid-open Patent Publication No. 2007-004504).) to generate an organizational chart (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0081 – organizational chart generation portion generates…] The organizational chart generation portion 104 generates a table that indicates a structure of persons of the α-company per predetermined period of time (Step #301 of FIG. 7). The organizational chart generation portion 104 generates an organizational chart 7A for the latest predetermined period of time based on a table for that period of time (Step #302). The organizational chart generation portion 104 generates an organizational chart 7A for each of other predetermined periods of time based on the individual tables (Step #303). The linking portion 105 generates a transition organizational chart 7B by linking, with a line or a ribbon, person names of a person who appears in both of two adjacent predetermined periods of time (Step #304). The description goes on to the detailed processing of each step.); Step (E): receiving a leave request form transmitted from a leave requesting work device that is one of the plurality of work devices; and Step (F): transmitting the leave request form to at least one superior work device that is at least one of the plurality of work devices based on leave conditions, wherein the leave conditions comprise a leave type and number of days and the server determines, based on the leave type and the number of days, a number of approval levels required, and transmits the leave request to corresponding superior work devices of the number of approval levels (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0075 - request]).
Kaseda 2018/0137447 may not expressly disclose the “organizational” and “leave request” features, however, Kumar 2005/0021646 teaches these features as follows (Kumar 2005/0021646 [0004 - personal time-off request/approval hierarchy] The present invention provides an e-mail based system to interface with the relevant members of the personal time-off request/approval hierarchy and with any associated software application or data to provide an e-mail based decision process. The ubiquitous nature of e-mail ensures acceptance of the system by all involved. E-mail is pervasive and used by nearly all corporate computer users. Also, e-mail is available to many computer users through mobile devices such as wireless telephones, wireless personal digital assistants and portable computers. As such, the present invention is superior to paper-based and intranet-based systems. [0020 - time-off management software application] For purposes of understanding the system and method of the present invention, the invention is described with reference to a personal time-off management software application incorporating or interfacing with an appmail engine AE. In this manner, the invention is described with reference to real-world examples that facilitate an understanding of the inventive concepts. The appmail engine AE can be used as described herein in connection with any other software application (referred to herein as the "basic application" or "basic program") where multiple members of a business or other hierarchy are seeking to interact with each other in a structured fashion to ensure that requests are approved or disapproved and recorded in a timely and easily understood fashion, with required record keeping. [0026-0029; Figs. 4-5][Fig. 9; 0038 - hierarchical organization]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaseda 2018/0137447 to include the features as taught by Kumar 2005/0021646. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to utilize well known tools and features for implementing and constructing backend organization data which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 6, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 1, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim(s) 1.
18/829,632 – Claim 2. Kaseda 2018/0137447 further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the current level field comprises a name and a job number of a filler, and the superior level field comprises a name and a job number of a superior of the filler (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0098 – job title…] In the second area 8B, an image showing the entirety of the business site is provided. The second area 8B has a location name of the business site and contains a first area 8A for each department of the business site. If someone has a job title of supervisor who has control over all the departments of the business site (hereinafter referred to as a “business site supervisor”), an image of a node representing that person is provided. Hereinafter, such an image of a node is referred to as a “node image 8N”. The node image 8N includes a person name and a frame. The node image 8N sometimes includes a job title. The node image 8N includes no job title where the job title is an “individual contributor”. The node image 8N includes a job title where the job title is something other than the “individual contributor”. [0109] The height Lhd of the second area 8B is obtained by the calculation of SUM(Lhc)+Lhb×(Nb−1)+Lha×2+Lhb for the case where someone works as a business site supervisor in a business site corresponding to the second area 8B. In the expression, “SUM(Lhc)” represents the sum of the heights Lhc of the first areas 8A to be arranged in the second area 8B, and “Nb” represents the number of first areas 8A. The second term represents the total sum of distances between the respective two adjacent first areas 8A. The third term represents the total sum of the height of the node image 8N for the business site supervisor and the height of the location name. The fourth term represents a distance between the node image 8N for the business site supervisor and the top first area 8A. [0121 – job title of supervisor] If someone works as a business site supervisor in the business site corresponding to the location name (YES in Step #507), then the organizational chart generation portion 104 adds a node image 8N for the business site supervisor under the location name (Step #508). The node image 8N has a frame surrounding a person name and a job title of the business site supervisor. The organizational chart generation portion 104 adds, under the node image 8N, the first areas 8A of the departments of the business site in the foregoing predetermined order (Step #509). It is, however, noted that no space is left between the location name and the node image 8N. The node image 8N and the top first area 8A are spaced from each other by a distance Lhb. The adjacent first areas 8A are spaced from each other by a distance Lhb.).
Claim 7, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 2, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim(s) 2.
18/829,632 – Claim 3. Kaseda 2018/0137447 further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the current level field comprises a name and a telephone extension number of a filler, and the superior level field comprises a name and a telephone extension number of a superior of the filler (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0047 – name and contact information] The business card DB server 2B is a server that stores information on different people and provide such information on request basis. The information includes, for each person, the person's name, contact information, organization (company or affiliation, for example) and department which the person is in. In short, the information is similar to the one usually included in a business card. [0050] The organizational chart creation system 100 enables creation of an organizational chart (transition organizational chart 7B) by means of which the user can find a way to contact a specific person more easily than with the conventional methods. The description goes on to a mechanism thereof by taking an example in which a user, who is an employee of a β-company, uses the organizational chart creation system 100 to create a transition organizational chart 7B of an α-company.).
Claim 8, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 3, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim(s) 3.
18/829,632 – Claim 5. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, Kaseda 2018/0137447 may not expressly teach the following features, however, Kumar 2005/0021646 teaches further comprising: Step (G): receiving an approval notification transmitted from the superior work device; and Step (H): transmitting the approval notification to the leave requesting work device (Kumar 2005/0021646 [Figs. 2, 4-5; 0005] In accordance with a first aspect of the present development, a computer-implemented decision process in a hierarchical organization comprises sending a request appmail to a requesting user by e-mail. The request appmail comprises a plurality of data input fields by which said requesting user can enter a request to be reviewed by a supervisor member of a hierarchy. A completed request appmail is received from said requesting user via e-mail. The completed request appmail is defined by said request appmail combined with request input data entered by said requesting user into said request appmail in order to define the request. The request input data are extracted from the completed request appmail and are saved in a request database. An approval appmail is generated based upon and including the extracted request input data. The approval appmail is sent to the supervisor via e-mail. A completed approval appmail is received from the supervisor via e-mail. The completed approval appmail is defined by the approval appmail combined with approval input data entered by the supervisor into the approval appmail in order to approve or reject the request. The approval input data are extracted from the completed approval appmail. Either an acceptance e-mail or a rejection e-mail is generated and sent to the requesting user depending upon the extracted approval input data.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaseda 2018/0137447 to include the features as taught by Kumar 2005/0021646. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to utilize well known tools and features for implementing and constructing backend organization data which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Kaseda 2018/0137447; in view of Bernaudin et al. 2015/0331556.
18/829,632 – Claim 1. (Currently Amended) Kaseda 2018/0137447 teaches A distributed organizational data construction method, applied to an organizational data construction backend, the distributed organizational data construction method comprising: Step (A): generating a plurality of organizational unit data, wherein each of the plurality of organizational unit data comprises one current level field and one superior level field (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0061 - data creation portion 202 then generates data that indicates] The personal data creation portion 202 then generates data that indicates the current date as a creation date and shows the information extracted. The personal data creation portion 202 then stores, as the personal data 6A, the data generated into a table corresponding to the organization of the personal data storage portion 201. [0067 - data creation portion 202 generates new personal data 6A, the change data creation portion 204 generates change data] When the personal data creation portion 202 generates new personal data 6A, the change data creation portion 204 generates change data 6B to store the change data 6B into the change data storage portion 203 in the following manner. [0080 - organizational chart generation portion 104 and the linking portion 105 generate a transition organizational chart 7B based on] The organizational chart generation portion 104 and the linking portion 105 generate a transition organizational chart 7B based on the personal data 6A and the change data 6B. The processing thereof is executed in the steps as depicted in FIG. 7. [0093 - configuration tables 6E1-6E3 shown in FIGS. 8A-8C are created as the configuration table 6E. … “first generation”, a “second generation”, . . . … “current generation” … the “first generation”, the “second generation”, and “third generation” …] The foregoing processing is performed, so that in this example the three configuration tables 6E1-6E3 shown in FIGS. 8A-8C are created as the configuration table 6E. Hereinafter, the periods are referred to as a “first generation”, a “second generation”, . . . , and so on in chronological order. The latest period is referred to as a “current generation”. The current generation is a third generation in this example. Each of the configuration tables 6E is set to correspond to a generation name. To be specific, the configuration tables 6E1, 6E2, and 6E3 are set to correspond to the “first generation”, the “second generation”, and “third generation”, respectively in this example.); Step (B): transmitting the plurality of organizational unit data to different work devices (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0044 - sends the transition organizational chart 7B to the terminal…] The organizational chart creation server 2A creates the transition organizational chart 7B in response to a request from the terminal 3 and sends the transition organizational chart 7B to the terminal 3.); Step (C): receiving a plurality of filled-in organizational unit data, wherein the plurality of filled-in organizational unit data are transmitted by the plurality of work devices (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0049 - receive the organizational chart … terminal 3 is, for example, a personal computer, a smartphone, a wearable terminal, or a tablet computer…] The terminal 3 is a client for the user to receive the organizational chart 7B. The terminal 3 has installed a web browser therein. The terminal 3 is, for example, a personal computer, a smartphone, a wearable terminal, or a tablet computer. Hereinafter, a case is described in which the terminal 3 is a tablet computer. [0073 - specification data receiving portion 103 receives the specification data 6C from the terminal …] With the organizational chart creation server 2A, the specification data receiving portion 103 receives the specification data 6C from the terminal 3.); Step (D): matching the current level fields and the superior level fields (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0065 - fields] The change data 6B indicates information related to the change, for example, indicates the following information. In the field of “date of change”, a date at which the corresponding change has been detected is indicated. In the field of “subject”, a subject to which the change has been made is indicated. In short, in this example, the subject indicates the name of a person to whom the personnel change has been made. [0066 - fields] In the fields of “pre-change” and “post-change”, a state of the subject before the change and a state of the subject after the change are indicated, respectively. In short, in this example, a department name of the corresponding person before the personnel change and a department name of the corresponding person after the personnel change are indicated, respectively.) in the plurality of filled-in organizational unit data (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0007 - retrieves item information matching a retrieving condition…] According to the technology, in a system for supporting an organization activity, an item information DB in a server computer stores item information including the identifiers of item participants. A personal information DB stores a plurality of pieces of personal attribute information in each organization individual. A personal relationship retrieving part responds to a user's retrieval request through a client terminal, retrieves item information matching a retrieving condition, extracts item participants in the information as persons with experience, retrieves personal information for each of the extracted persons with experience and a user from the personal information DB, extracts the user and the expert having at least one common attribute information, and transmits the extracted contents to a client terminal to display them (English abstract of Japanese Laid-open Patent Publication No. 2007-004504).) to generate an organizational chart (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0081 – organizational chart generation portion generates…] The organizational chart generation portion 104 generates a table that indicates a structure of persons of the α-company per predetermined period of time (Step #301 of FIG. 7). The organizational chart generation portion 104 generates an organizational chart 7A for the latest predetermined period of time based on a table for that period of time (Step #302). The organizational chart generation portion 104 generates an organizational chart 7A for each of other predetermined periods of time based on the individual tables (Step #303). The linking portion 105 generates a transition organizational chart 7B by linking, with a line or a ribbon, person names of a person who appears in both of two adjacent predetermined periods of time (Step #304). The description goes on to the detailed processing of each step.); Step (E): receiving a leave request form transmitted from a leave requesting work device that is one of the plurality of work devices; and Step (F): transmitting the leave request form to at least one superior work device that is at least one of the plurality of work devices based on leave conditions, wherein the leave conditions comprise a leave type and number of days and the server determines, based on the leave type and the number of days, a number of approval levels required, and transmits the leave request to corresponding superior work devices of the number of approval levels (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0075 - request]).
Kaseda 2018/0137447 may not expressly disclose the “organizational” and “leave request” features, however, Bernaudin et al. 2015/0331556 teaches these features as follows (Bernaudin et al. 2015/0331556 [0034 - hierarchical chart] Manager cockpit 110 further includes learning view 114. Learning view 114 can be configured to present activity that is related to learning. For example, learning view 114 can assist a manager in tracking classes or seminars that are a requirement for the manager's direct reports. Manager cockpit 110 further includes succession view 115. Succession view 115 can be configured to present a hierarchical chart that assigns a successor to each direct report should the direct report leave the organization. Changes to succession can be performed by the manager through manager cockpit 110 or alternatively by the human resources division of the organization. Manager cockpit 110 further includes time-off view 116. Time-off view 116 can be configured to schedule personal time for the manager's direct reports. In time-off view 116, the manager can approve, deny, or change requests from the direct reports. In other embodiments, additional views can be included in manager cockpit 110. [0060 - requested time-off and approved time-off] Time-off view 600 includes chart 610. Chart 610 presents a week of time along the x-axis and the manager's direct reports along the y-axis. In other embodiments, the period of time and the axis in which the period of time is presented can vary. Here, direct report 620 is in the first row of chart 610, direct report 630 is in the second row of chart 610, and direct report 640 is in the third row of chart 610. Chart 610 can display requested time-off and approved time-off for a direct report in the row that corresponds to the direct report. For example, time-off requests and approvals for direct report 620 are presented in the first row while time-off requests and approvals for direct report 620 are presented in the second row. In some embodiments, requests and approvals can be visually distinct from one another, thus allowing the manager to quickly distinguish approved time-off from requested time-off. Here, approved time-off (e.g., blocks 625 and 635) are presented as a solid black box while requested time-off (e.g., block 645) is presented as a dashed box. In other embodiments, approved time-off and requested time-off can be represented using other visual cues.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaseda 2018/0137447 to include the features as taught by Bernaudin et al. 2015/0331556. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to utilize well known tools and features for implementing and constructing backend organization data which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 6, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 1, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim(s) 1.
18/829,632 – Claim 2. Kaseda 2018/0137447 further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the current level field comprises a name and a job number of a filler, and the superior level field comprises a name and a job number of a superior of the filler (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0098 – job title…] In the second area 8B, an image showing the entirety of the business site is provided. The second area 8B has a location name of the business site and contains a first area 8A for each department of the business site. If someone has a job title of supervisor who has control over all the departments of the business site (hereinafter referred to as a “business site supervisor”), an image of a node representing that person is provided. Hereinafter, such an image of a node is referred to as a “node image 8N”. The node image 8N includes a person name and a frame. The node image 8N sometimes includes a job title. The node image 8N includes no job title where the job title is an “individual contributor”. The node image 8N includes a job title where the job title is something other than the “individual contributor”. [0109] The height Lhd of the second area 8B is obtained by the calculation of SUM(Lhc)+Lhb×(Nb−1)+Lha×2+Lhb for the case where someone works as a business site supervisor in a business site corresponding to the second area 8B. In the expression, “SUM(Lhc)” represents the sum of the heights Lhc of the first areas 8A to be arranged in the second area 8B, and “Nb” represents the number of first areas 8A. The second term represents the total sum of distances between the respective two adjacent first areas 8A. The third term represents the total sum of the height of the node image 8N for the business site supervisor and the height of the location name. The fourth term represents a distance between the node image 8N for the business site supervisor and the top first area 8A. [0121 – job title of supervisor] If someone works as a business site supervisor in the business site corresponding to the location name (YES in Step #507), then the organizational chart generation portion 104 adds a node image 8N for the business site supervisor under the location name (Step #508). The node image 8N has a frame surrounding a person name and a job title of the business site supervisor. The organizational chart generation portion 104 adds, under the node image 8N, the first areas 8A of the departments of the business site in the foregoing predetermined order (Step #509). It is, however, noted that no space is left between the location name and the node image 8N. The node image 8N and the top first area 8A are spaced from each other by a distance Lhb. The adjacent first areas 8A are spaced from each other by a distance Lhb.).
Claim 7, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 2, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim(s) 2.
18/829,632 – Claim 3. Kaseda 2018/0137447 further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the current level field comprises a name and a telephone extension number of a filler, and the superior level field comprises a name and a telephone extension number of a superior of the filler (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0047 – name and contact information] The business card DB server 2B is a server that stores information on different people and provide such information on request basis. The information includes, for each person, the person's name, contact information, organization (company or affiliation, for example) and department which the person is in. In short, the information is similar to the one usually included in a business card. [0050] The organizational chart creation system 100 enables creation of an organizational chart (transition organizational chart 7B) by means of which the user can find a way to contact a specific person more easily than with the conventional methods. The description goes on to a mechanism thereof by taking an example in which a user, who is an employee of a β-company, uses the organizational chart creation system 100 to create a transition organizational chart 7B of an α-company.).
Claim 8, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 3, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim(s) 3.
18/829,632 – Claim 5. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, Kaseda 2018/0137447 may not expressly teach the following features, however, Bernaudin et al. 2015/0331556 teaches further comprising: Step (G): receiving an approval notification transmitted from the superior work device; and Step (H): transmitting the approval notification to the leave requesting work device (Bernaudin et al. 2015/0331556 [0034 - hierarchical chart] Manager cockpit 110 further includes learning view 114. Learning view 114 can be configured to present activity that is related to learning. For example, learning view 114 can assist a manager in tracking classes or seminars that are a requirement for the manager's direct reports. Manager cockpit 110 further includes succession view 115. Succession view 115 can be configured to present a hierarchical chart that assigns a successor to each direct report should the direct report leave the organization. Changes to succession can be performed by the manager through manager cockpit 110 or alternatively by the human resources division of the organization. Manager cockpit 110 further includes time-off view 116. Time-off view 116 can be configured to schedule personal time for the manager's direct reports. In time-off view 116, the manager can approve, deny, or change requests from the direct reports. In other embodiments, additional views can be included in manager cockpit 110. [0060 - requested time-off and approved time-off] Time-off view 600 includes chart 610. Chart 610 presents a week of time along the x-axis and the manager's direct reports along the y-axis. In other embodiments, the period of time and the axis in which the period of time is presented can vary. Here, direct report 620 is in the first row of chart 610, direct report 630 is in the second row of chart 610, and direct report 640 is in the third row of chart 610. Chart 610 can display requested time-off and approved time-off for a direct report in the row that corresponds to the direct report. For example, time-off requests and approvals for direct report 620 are presented in the first row while time-off requests and approvals for direct report 620 are presented in the second row. In some embodiments, requests and approvals can be visually distinct from one another, thus allowing the manager to quickly distinguish approved time-off from requested time-off. Here, approved time-off (e.g., blocks 625 and 635) are presented as a solid black box while requested time-off (e.g., block 645) is presented as a dashed box. In other embodiments, approved time-off and requested time-off can be represented using other visual cues.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaseda 2018/0137447 to include the features as taught by Bernaudin et al. 2015/0331556. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to utilize well known tools and features for implementing and constructing backend organization data which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Kaseda 2018/0137447; in view of Patino-Bueno et al. 2016/0378437.
18/829,632 – Claim 1. (Currently Amended) Kaseda 2018/0137447 teaches A distributed organizational data construction method, applied to an organizational data construction backend, the distributed organizational data construction method comprising: Step (A): generating a plurality of organizational unit data, wherein each of the plurality of organizational unit data comprises one current level field and one superior level field (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0061 - data creation portion 202 then generates data that indicates] The personal data creation portion 202 then generates data that indicates the current date as a creation date and shows the information extracted. The personal data creation portion 202 then stores, as the personal data 6A, the data generated into a table corresponding to the organization of the personal data storage portion 201. [0067 - data creation portion 202 generates new personal data 6A, the change data creation portion 204 generates change data] When the personal data creation portion 202 generates new personal data 6A, the change data creation portion 204 generates change data 6B to store the change data 6B into the change data storage portion 203 in the following manner. [0080 - organizational chart generation portion 104 and the linking portion 105 generate a transition organizational chart 7B based on] The organizational chart generation portion 104 and the linking portion 105 generate a transition organizational chart 7B based on the personal data 6A and the change data 6B. The processing thereof is executed in the steps as depicted in FIG. 7. [0093 - configuration tables 6E1-6E3 shown in FIGS. 8A-8C are created as the configuration table 6E. … “first generation”, a “second generation”, . . . … “current generation” … the “first generation”, the “second generation”, and “third generation” …] The foregoing processing is performed, so that in this example the three configuration tables 6E1-6E3 shown in FIGS. 8A-8C are created as the configuration table 6E. Hereinafter, the periods are referred to as a “first generation”, a “second generation”, . . . , and so on in chronological order. The latest period is referred to as a “current generation”. The current generation is a third generation in this example. Each of the configuration tables 6E is set to correspond to a generation name. To be specific, the configuration tables 6E1, 6E2, and 6E3 are set to correspond to the “first generation”, the “second generation”, and “third generation”, respectively in this example.); Step (B): transmitting the plurality of organizational unit data to different work devices (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0044 - sends the transition organizational chart 7B to the terminal…] The organizational chart creation server 2A creates the transition organizational chart 7B in response to a request from the terminal 3 and sends the transition organizational chart 7B to the terminal 3.); Step (C): receiving a plurality of filled-in organizational unit data, wherein the plurality of filled-in organizational unit data are transmitted by the plurality of work devices (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0049 - receive the organizational chart … terminal 3 is, for example, a personal computer, a smartphone, a wearable terminal, or a tablet computer…] The terminal 3 is a client for the user to receive the organizational chart 7B. The terminal 3 has installed a web browser therein. The terminal 3 is, for example, a personal computer, a smartphone, a wearable terminal, or a tablet computer. Hereinafter, a case is described in which the terminal 3 is a tablet computer. [0073 - specification data receiving portion 103 receives the specification data 6C from the terminal …] With the organizational chart creation server 2A, the specification data receiving portion 103 receives the specification data 6C from the terminal 3.); Step (D): matching the current level fields and the superior level fields (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0065 - fields] The change data 6B indicates information related to the change, for example, indicates the following information. In the field of “date of change”, a date at which the corresponding change has been detected is indicated. In the field of “subject”, a subject to which the change has been made is indicated. In short, in this example, the subject indicates the name of a person to whom the personnel change has been made. [0066 - fields] In the fields of “pre-change” and “post-change”, a state of the subject before the change and a state of the subject after the change are indicated, respectively. In short, in this example, a department name of the corresponding person before the personnel change and a department name of the corresponding person after the personnel change are indicated, respectively.) in the plurality of filled-in organizational unit data (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0007 - retrieves item information matching a retrieving condition…] According to the technology, in a system for supporting an organization activity, an item information DB in a server computer stores item information including the identifiers of item participants. A personal information DB stores a plurality of pieces of personal attribute information in each organization individual. A personal relationship retrieving part responds to a user's retrieval request through a client terminal, retrieves item information matching a retrieving condition, extracts item participants in the information as persons with experience, retrieves personal information for each of the extracted persons with experience and a user from the personal information DB, extracts the user and the expert having at least one common attribute information, and transmits the extracted contents to a client terminal to display them (English abstract of Japanese Laid-open Patent Publication No. 2007-004504).) to generate an organizational chart (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0081 – organizational chart generation portion generates…] The organizational chart generation portion 104 generates a table that indicates a structure of persons of the α-company per predetermined period of time (Step #301 of FIG. 7). The organizational chart generation portion 104 generates an organizational chart 7A for the latest predetermined period of time based on a table for that period of time (Step #302). The organizational chart generation portion 104 generates an organizational chart 7A for each of other predetermined periods of time based on the individual tables (Step #303). The linking portion 105 generates a transition organizational chart 7B by linking, with a line or a ribbon, person names of a person who appears in both of two adjacent predetermined periods of time (Step #304). The description goes on to the detailed processing of each step.); Step (E): receiving a leave request form transmitted from a leave requesting work device that is one of the plurality of work devices; and Step (F): transmitting the leave request form to at least one superior work device that is at least one of the plurality of work devices based on leave conditions, wherein the leave conditions comprise a leave type and number of days and the server determines, based on the leave type and the number of days, a number of approval levels required, and transmits the leave request to corresponding superior work devices of the number of approval levels (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0075 - request]).
Kaseda 2018/0137447 may not expressly disclose the “organizational” and “leave request” features, however, Patino-Bueno et al. 2016/0378437 teaches these features as follows (Patino-Bueno et al. 2016/0378437 [Fig. 3; 0056 - child entity 303 and parent entity 302 in child entity hierarchy…] FIG. 3 depicts a diagrammatic representation of child entity hierarchies 300, 310 according to some embodiments. In this example, parent entity 301 (which is a top-level entity) in child entity hierarchy 300 has a single child entity 303 and parent entity 302 in child entity hierarchy 320 has child entities 304, 306. Relations between these entities can be defined visually via the user interface, utilizing pre-defined entity building blocks from an integrated low-code application development platform. Entity building blocks are further described below. [150; 0170; 0176 – leave requests and approval process…] The use cases discussed above included two work lists. One for employees to see their own leave requests and a second for managers to list the leave requests awaiting approval. Both work lists are about showing leave requests. These work lists therefore naturally belong to Leave Request entity. The employee's work list shows the Start date, End date, and Status properties of the Leave Request. To select only leave requests for the current user, the work list includes the filter rule requestor.userId=user.userId., where user is one of the global elements available for expressing rules. The Manager's work list also includes the Start date, End date, and Status properties from the Leave Request. It also includes requestor.name (using the Requestor relationship to find the name of the employee requesting leave). To select only leave requests for the current user's direct reports, the work list includes the filter rule requestor.manager.userId=user.userId. This work list could also include the filter rule status=Submitted to only show the leave requests that are awaiting approval. In some embodiments, this rule may be omitted so a manager can see all of their direct report's leave requests. The work list can add Status to the filter form so the manager can choose to filter by Status if they wish. An example of worklist 1000 is shown in FIG. 10. An example of possible filters (e.g., Customer Number, Customer Zip Code, and Customer Name) 1100 is shown in FIG. 11.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaseda 2018/0137447 to include the features as taught by Patino-Bueno et al. 2016/0378437. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to utilize well known tools and features for implementing and constructing backend organization data which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 6, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 1, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim(s) 1.
18/829,632 – Claim 2. Kaseda 2018/0137447 further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the current level field comprises a name and a job number of a filler, and the superior level field comprises a name and a job number of a superior of the filler (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0098 – job title…] In the second area 8B, an image showing the entirety of the business site is provided. The second area 8B has a location name of the business site and contains a first area 8A for each department of the business site. If someone has a job title of supervisor who has control over all the departments of the business site (hereinafter referred to as a “business site supervisor”), an image of a node representing that person is provided. Hereinafter, such an image of a node is referred to as a “node image 8N”. The node image 8N includes a person name and a frame. The node image 8N sometimes includes a job title. The node image 8N includes no job title where the job title is an “individual contributor”. The node image 8N includes a job title where the job title is something other than the “individual contributor”. [0109] The height Lhd of the second area 8B is obtained by the calculation of SUM(Lhc)+Lhb×(Nb−1)+Lha×2+Lhb for the case where someone works as a business site supervisor in a business site corresponding to the second area 8B. In the expression, “SUM(Lhc)” represents the sum of the heights Lhc of the first areas 8A to be arranged in the second area 8B, and “Nb” represents the number of first areas 8A. The second term represents the total sum of distances between the respective two adjacent first areas 8A. The third term represents the total sum of the height of the node image 8N for the business site supervisor and the height of the location name. The fourth term represents a distance between the node image 8N for the business site supervisor and the top first area 8A. [0121 – job title of supervisor] If someone works as a business site supervisor in the business site corresponding to the location name (YES in Step #507), then the organizational chart generation portion 104 adds a node image 8N for the business site supervisor under the location name (Step #508). The node image 8N has a frame surrounding a person name and a job title of the business site supervisor. The organizational chart generation portion 104 adds, under the node image 8N, the first areas 8A of the departments of the business site in the foregoing predetermined order (Step #509). It is, however, noted that no space is left between the location name and the node image 8N. The node image 8N and the top first area 8A are spaced from each other by a distance Lhb. The adjacent first areas 8A are spaced from each other by a distance Lhb.).
Claim 7, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 2, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim(s) 2.
18/829,632 – Claim 3. Kaseda 2018/0137447 further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the current level field comprises a name and a telephone extension number of a filler, and the superior level field comprises a name and a telephone extension number of a superior of the filler (Kaseda 2018/0137447 [0047 – name and contact information] The business card DB server 2B is a server that stores information on different people and provide such information on request basis. The information includes, for each person, the person's name, contact information, organization (company or affiliation, for example) and department which the person is in. In short, the information is similar to the one usually included in a business card. [0050] The organizational chart creation system 100 enables creation of an organizational chart (transition organizational chart 7B) by means of which the user can find a way to contact a specific person more easily than with the conventional methods. The description goes on to a mechanism thereof by taking an example in which a user, who is an employee of a β-company, uses the organizational chart creation system 100 to create a transition organizational chart 7B of an α-company.).
Claim 8, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 3, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim(s) 3.
18/829,632 – Claim 5. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, Kaseda 2018/0137447 may not expressly teach the following features, however, Patino-Bueno et al. 2016/0378437 teaches further comprising: Step (G): receiving an approval notification transmitted from the superior work device; and Step (H): transmitting the approval notification to the leave requesting work device (Patino-Bueno et al. 2016/0378437 [Fig. 3; 0056 - child entity 303 and parent entity 302 in child entity hierarchy…] FIG. 3 depicts a diagrammatic representation of child entity hierarchies 300, 310 according to some embodiments. In this example, parent entity 301 (which is a top-level entity) in child entity hierarchy 300 has a single child entity 303 and parent entity 302 in child entity hierarchy 320 has child entities 304, 306. Relations between these entities can be defined visually via the user interface, utilizing pre-defined entity building blocks from an integrated low-code application development platform. Entity building blocks are further described below. [150; 0170; 0176 – leave requests and approval process…] The use cases discussed above included two work lists. One for employees to see their own leave requests and a second for managers to list the leave requests awaiting approval. Both work lists are about showing leave requests. These work lists therefore naturally belong to Leave Request entity. The employee's work list shows the Start date, End date, and Status properties of the Leave Request. To select only leave requests for the current user, the work list includes the filter rule requestor.userId=user.userId., where user is one of the global elements available for expressing rules. The Manager's work list also includes the Start date, End date, and Status properties from the Leave Request. It also includes requestor.name (using the Requestor relationship to find the name of the employee requesting leave). To select only leave requests for the current user's direct reports, the work list includes the filter rule requestor.manager.userId=user.userId. This work list could also include the filter rule status=Submitted to only show the leave requests that are awaiting approval. In some embodiments, this rule may be omitted so a manager can see all of their direct report's leave requests. The work list can add Status to the filter form so the manager can choose to filter by Status if they wish. An example of worklist 1000 is shown in FIG. 10. An example of possible filters (e.g., Customer Number, Customer Zip Code, and Customer Name) 1100 is shown in FIG. 11.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kaseda 2018/0137447 to include the features as taught by Patino-Bueno et al. 2016/0378437. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to utilize well known tools and features for implementing and constructing backend organization data which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Examiner’s Response to Arguments
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn. See notes above for additional reasoning and rationale for dropping 35 USC 101 rejection including Applicant’s amendments, arguments, lack of abstract idea, and practical integration.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Regarding Claims 1-3 and 5-8, on page(s) 4-7 of Applicant’s Remarks (dated 11/21/2025), Applicants traverse the 35 USC §101 rejections arguing the following: the claim amendments recite specific technical features that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant further argues that the claim amendments represent a patent-eligible improvement in computer-related technologies consistent with Enfish, McRO, and DDR Hodlings.
With respect, the Office disagrees with Applicant arguments and the claims remain rejected as 101 subject matter ineligible. The Office maintains the 101 patent ineligible rejection as noted above as the amended claims do NOT provide any specific, technical improvements to computer functionality and instead simply apply abstract ideas using a generic computer. These claims do not provide any specifics about how the computer is improved and merely claims a generic computer or device as a mere tool for implementing the abstract by merely transmitting or communicating and organizing information.
Enfish, McRO, and DDR Holdings clarify that computer-related inventions are patent-eligible if they provide specific, technical improvements to computer functionality, rather than just applying abstract ideas (like organizing data or automating tasks) using a generic computer. These cases establish that genuine technical advancements, like a specific self-referential database structure (Enfish), unique rules for animating characters (McRO), or overcoming network problems with a novel routing solution (DDR Holdings), can overcome § 101 challenges by improving the underlying technology itself, not just the user's experience or a business process.
Applicant’s invention does not provide any specific, technical improvements to computer functionality. Consequently, Applicant’s invention is rejected as 101 patent ineligible.
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn. See notes above for additional reasoning and rationale for dropping prior-art rejection including Applicant’s amendments and arguments and unique combination of features and elements not taught by the prior-art without hindsight reasoning.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Regarding Claim X, on page(s) 8-9 of Applicant’s Remarks / After Final Amendments (dated 07/15/2011), Applicant(s) argues that the cited reference(s) (Ellis and Vandermolen) fails to teach, describe, or suggest the amended features. Specifically, Applicant(s) argues that cited reference(s) do not teach, describe, or suggest the following: . With respect, Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive and the amended feature(s) remain rejected as follows.
With respect, Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive and the amended feature(s) remain rejected as follows.
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
PERTINENT PRIOR ART – Patent Literature
The prior-art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Subramaniam et al. 2021/0279220 [0081] A work graph includes data that shows diverse relationships between entities inside an organization, where entities represented as nodes, include a person, email, documents, project, issue, etc. In other words, a work graph describes more than an organizational hierarchy, and includes other relationships. For example, a work graph relates interpersonal communication (e.g., email that is communicated between personnel that are not in the same organizational chart, are at very different organizational levels, etc.), documents shared/authored by personnel in different organizational groups, projects that involve different personnel from different organizational group (e.g., a project that involves engineering, finance, marketing, etc.), issues that affect or are influenced by different personnel, etc.
Ziemann 2013/0002676 [0175 - to simplify the graphical depiction of the organizational chart, less relevant levels of the organizational hierarchy may be omitted from the graphical depiction of the organizational chart, but remain available upon request]
Atmaja 2009/0222298 discloses the “organizational unit data comprises one current level field and one superior level field” (Atmaja 2009/0222298 [0043] The illustrative embodiments described herein provide a computer implemented method, apparatus, and computer usable program product for generating organizational charts. The process receives a selection of an employee from an employee directory to form a reference employee. A reference employee is an employee selected from an organization from which an organizational chart is derived. In other words, the reference employee serves as a point of reference when generating the organizational chart. For example, the scope of an organizational chart may be defined as including all those employees located on two manager levels above the reference employee. Similarly, the organizational chart may be defined as including all those employees located on two subordinate levels below the reference employee. [0062] In one embodiment, user 308 manually inputs values for search criteria 322 into browser 316. In an alternate embodiment, search criteria 322 may be provided automatically when user 308 selects a particular template from organizational chart template 312. For example, search criteria 322 and/or organizational chart template 312 may specify that an organizational chart 310 shall include an employee's photograph, title, and job description. In addition, search criteria 322 and/or organizational chart template 312 may specify that such profile data shall be collected for all employees located up two manager levels and down two subordinate levels. Extraction tool 320 may use this information to limit the scope of the search of employee directory 314. [0064] Once identified, extraction tool 320 stores and processes the uniform resource locator pattern associated with the selected link. Thereafter, if search criteria 322 specifies that organizational chart 310 shall include information for employees two manager levels above a reference employee identified in employee directory page 318, then extraction tool 320 will automatically navigate to the employee directory pages for the managers on each of the two manager levels above the reference employee. In one example, extraction tool 320 navigates to the employee directory page for the manager one level above the reference employee. Extraction tool 320 may then proceed to the employee directory page for the manager two manager levels above the reference employee by following the uniform resource locator pattern located on the employee directory page for the manager one manager level above the selected employee. In a similar manner, extraction tool 320 may navigate to the employee directory pages for each subordinate employee under the reference employee. [0066] Before proceeding to another employee directory page, extraction tool 320 may collect the information defined by set of profile data elements 324. User 308 selects from employee directory page 318 the profile data elements that form set of profile data elements 324. Alternatively, the profile data elements may be pre-selected according to the chart template of organizational chart template 312 selected by user 308. Set of profile data elements 324 may be specified by the hypertext markup language tags included within the source code of an employee directory page. Thus, upon navigating to an employee directory page for an upper level manager, extraction tool 320 collects profile data elements for that manager specified by set of profile data elements 324. The profile data elements are located on a particular employee directory page by locating the appropriate hypertext markup language tags. [0089; Fig. 9] FIG. 9 is a diagram of an organizational chart in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. Organizational chart 900 includes reference level 902. Reference level 902 is a level of organizational chart 900 that includes reference employee 904. Levels of an organizational chart include employees having the same or similar positions in the organizational hierarchy. Reference employee 904 is an employee that correlates with a base uniform resource locator pattern, such as base uniform resource locator pattern 500 in FIG. 5. Reference level 902 also includes co-worker 906 that shares a common manager with reference employee 904. [0090] Organizational chart 900 also includes manager 908 located in first manager level 910. Manager 908 is the manager directly over reference employee 904. Organizational chart 900 also includes manager 912 located in second manager level 914. Manager levels are identified from the data stored within an employee directory, such as employee directory 314 in FIG. 3. In particular, manager levels are identified for a chain of managers from a uniform resource locator pattern selected by a user from an employee directory page of a reference employee. For example, a first manager level is identified by an extraction tool, such as extraction tool 320 in FIG. 3, when the extraction tool navigates to an employee directory page of a manager of reference employee 904. The same uniform resource locator pattern is used by the extraction tool to identify each successive manager and manager level in the chain of managers. [0091] Organizational chart 900 also includes subordinates 916, 918, and 920. Subordinates 916, 918, and 920 are employees managed by reference employee 904 and located in subordinate level 922. Subordinate levels of organizational chart 900 are identified in the same manner in which manager levels are identified. [0093] In another embodiment, organizational chart 900 may also show a chain of subordinates of either manager 912, manager 908, or co-worker 906 provided the chain of subordinates comports with selected search criteria identified with respect to reference employee 904. For example, if search criteria requests that an organizational chart be generated having two subordinate levels from reference level 902, then a chain of subordinates identified for co-worker 906 may be displayed to the extent that the chain of subordinates does not exceed the two subordinate levels identified in the search criteria identified with respect to reference employee 904.).
Todorenko et al. 2023/0169432 [0063 - the process workflow associated with leave approval of an employee in an organization may include the employee filling out a digital vacation request form and sending the same to a corresponding manager electronically, the manager approving the request, and the request being routed to human resource department and payroll department]).
PERTINENT PRIOR ART – Non-Patent Literature (NPL)
The NPL prior-art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Design and Implementation of a Web Based Leave Management System. International Journal of Computer Applications Technology and Research Volume 11–Issue 04, 123-144, 2022, ISSN:-2319–8656 DOI:10.7753/IJCATR1104.1006.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T. SITTNER whose telephone number is (571) 270-7137 and email: matthew.sittner@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm (Mountain Time Zone). Please schedule interview requests via email: matthew.sittner@uspto.gov
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah M. Monfeldt can be reached on (571) 270-1833.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW T SITTNER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629b