DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-33 are cancelled. Claims 34-53 filed June 10, 2025 are pending and are hereby examined.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
4. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
5. The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
6. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
7. Claims 34-53 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 34-53 of U.S. Patent 12,094,012. In fact, the ‘012 patent is more detailed and more specific and encompasses almost all of the elements of the broader, current ‘608 application as seen below.
8. This is an obviousness nonstatutory double patenting rejection because although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations from the present application and U.S. Patent 12,094,012 above are significantly similar and the claimed features seem to be identical with various obvious alternate methods. The omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375. For these reasons, claims 34-53 of the instant application are not identical to claims 34-53 of U.S. Patent 12,094,012, but they are not patentably distinct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 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.
10. Claims 34-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
11. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 34-47 are drawn to a system, claims 48-52 are drawn to a method, and claim 53 are drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium, all of which are statutory classes of invention.
12. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 34, 48, and 53 recite an abstract idea of a dynamic organization structure model.
The independent claims 34, 48, and 53 recite the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
…
receive, responsive to an interaction with an interactive element displayed in… a selection of an adjustment parameter for a subset of a set of entities;
identify a difference between a performance information of each entity of the set of entities and a mean performance information determined based on the performance information of each entity of the set of entities;
update the performance information of each entity in the subset based on the adjustment parameter and an adjustment to the subset, wherein the adjustment to the subset corresponds to an adjustment value determined for the subset and applied to the performance information of each entity in the subset;
determine an impact on the difference according to the adjustment parameter used to update the performance information, the impact indicative of a change to the difference based on the updated performance information;
cause, responsive to the impact… comprising a value representing the adjustment to the subset associated with the adjustment parameter and a visual indication of the impact; and
perform, responsive to an interaction with… an operation corresponding to the set of entities based on the impact.
13. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), it states: "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Clearly, a dynamic organization structure model falls under sales activities, therefore commercial or legal interactions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
14. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole describes a dynamic organization structure model with generally recited computer elements such as a processor, memory, graphical user interface, and display in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and are merely invoked as tools for a dynamic organization structure model. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
15. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor, memory, graphical user interface, and display to perform these steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
16. Regarding dependent claim 35, although this claim recites a generally recited graphical user interface and display, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of a dynamic organization structure model, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
17. Regarding dependent claims 36, 41, and 44, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of a dynamic organization structure model, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
18. Regarding dependent claim 37, although this claim recites a generally recited client device, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of a dynamic organization structure model, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
19. Regarding dependent claim 38, although this claim recites a generally recited client device and graphical user interface, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of a dynamic organization structure model, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
20. Regarding dependent claims 39, 43, 45, 46, and 50, although these claims recite generally recited processors, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of a dynamic organization structure model, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
21. Regarding dependent claims 40 and 42, although these claims recite generally recited processors and graphical user interface, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of a dynamic organization structure model, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
22. Regarding dependent claim 47, although this claim recites generally recited processors, client device, and graphical user interface, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of a dynamic organization structure model, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
23. Regarding dependent claim 49, although this claim recites generally recited processors, display, and graphical user interface, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of a dynamic organization structure model, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
24. Regarding dependent claim 51, although this claims recites generally recited processors and client device, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of a dynamic organization structure model, and this claims neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
25. Therefore, the limitations of the inventions, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Examiner Notes
26. Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, is suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
27. Claims 34-53 are novel and unobvious over the prior art, however, there remains a pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. After further search and consideration, the most pertinent U.S. prior art was found to be Cooper et al (US 2010/0100561), McKeown et al (US 2010/0100427), Hecker et al (US 2010/0076821), and Lo (US 2007/0011036). Lo (US 2007/0011036) is directed to analyzing salary. Hecker et al (US 2010/0076821) is directed to automated performance appraisal system with a compensation simulator. McKeown et al (US 2010/0100427) is directed to performance driven compensation for enterprise-level human capital management. Cooper et al (US 2010/0100561) is directed to benefits management for enterprise-level human capital management. Leymann et al (Workflow-based applications, NPL) is directed to optimizing workflow, and was found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
28. However, both the most pertinent U.S. prior art and NPL fail to disclose all of the limitations particularly:
determine an impact on the difference according to the adjustment parameter used to update the performance information, the impact indicative of a change to the difference based on the updated performance information;
cause, responsive to the impact, the graphical user interface to render an updated display comprising a value representing the adjustment to the subset associated with the adjustment parameter and a visual indication of the impact.
29. No prior art cited here or in any previous Office Action neither fully anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the subject matter present in the independent claims, either alone or in combination. The limitations lacking in the prior art, in combination with the other limitations clearly claimed in the application, are novel and unobvious.
Conclusion
30. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Leymann et al (Workflow-based applications, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
31. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
32. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
33. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
34. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627