DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-15 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on May 7, 2025 has been acknowledged.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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;
(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”; 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a profile information obtainer that obtains …,” “a work plan information obtainer that obtains …,” “an organizational distance deriver that derives …,” “a work relevance deriver that derives …,” “a generator that generates …,” and “an outputter that outputs ...” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Further, Examiner notes that a review of the specification reveals that the specification discloses “constituent elements of the information processing system and the information processing device may be configured by dedicated hardware, general hardware that executes the program, or a combination thereof. The general hardware may be configured by memory on which the program is recorded and a general processor reading out and executing the program from the memory. The memory may be semiconductor memory, a hard disk, or the like, and the general processor may be a CPU or the like” in page 33, line 33-page 34, line 5, and thus, Examiner interprets the corresponding structures of the aforementioned generic placeholders are covered by the hardware and program disclosed in pages 33-34.
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.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims (claim 1, and similarly claims 2-15) recite the abstract elements of
obtaining first profile information indicating a profile of a first worker and second profile information indicating a profile of a second worker;
obtaining first work plan information indicating a work plan of the first worker and second work plan information indicating a work plan of the second worker;
deriving a first organizational distance between the first worker and the second worker in accordance with the first profile information and the second profile information;
deriving a first work relevance between a first work of the first worker at a time when processing is executed and a second work of the second worker at the time in accordance with the first work plan information and the second work plan information;
generating first information-to-be-presented in accordance with the first organizational distance and the first work relevance, the first information-to-be-presented being information to be presented to the first worker as the profile of the second worker; and
outputting the first information-to-be-presented.
Claims 1-15, in view of the claim limitations, are directed to the abstract idea of collecting first and second worker profile information and first and second worker work plan information, deriving organizational distance between the first and second worker based on the worker profile information, deriving relevance between the first and second worker based on the work plan information, generating information to present based on the organizational distance and relevance, and outputting the information.
As a whole, each of the limitations above manage the human behavior and relationships of human workers who are working according to work plans in organization by collecting, evaluating, and presenting information regarding workers based on their worker profiles, work plans, relevance, and organizational distance; therefore, the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. Further, as a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of collecting first and second worker profile information and first and second worker work plan information, deriving organizational distance between the first and second worker based on the worker profile information, deriving relevance between the first and second worker based on the work plan information, generating information to present based on the organizational distance and relevance, and outputting the information could all be reasonably interpreted as a human mentally observing worker profile and work plan information, a human mentally evaluating and using judgment to derive organizational distance and relevance based on the observed information, a human mentally evaluating the distance and relevance to decide information to present, and a human outputting the information manually and/or using a pen and paper; therefore, the claims recite a mental process. In addition, with respect to the dependent claims, aside from the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea addressed below under the second prong of Step 2A and 2B, the limitations of dependent claims 2-13 & 15 recite similar further abstract limitations to those discussed above that narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims because, aside from the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions the limitations of claims recite mental processes that can be practically performed mentally by observing, evaluating, and judging information mentally and/or with a pen and paper and recite a certain method of organizing human activity that manages business interactions and the sales and marketing activity. Accordingly, since the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of “[a] An information processing method to be performed by an information processing device, the information processing method comprising” in claim 1, “a wearable device” in claim 2, “the wearable device includes smart glasses for presenting … by an image” in claim 3, “the wearable device includes a sound outputter that presents … by sound” in claim 4, “[a] non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for causing a computer to execute” in claim 13, “[a]n information processing device comprising,” “a profile information obtainer,” “a work plan information obtainer,” “a work relevance deriver,” “a generator,” and “an outputter” in claim 14, and “[a]n information processing system comprising: the information processing device” and “a wearable device …, wherein the outputter outputs … to the wearable device, and the wearable device” in claim 15; however, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. In addition, these features merely generally link the abstract idea to a technical field/environment, namely a generic computing environment. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-13 & 15 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s specification at page 33, line 33-page 34, line 5 (discussing the information processing system and the information processing device implementing the invention may be general hardware that executes the program configured by memory on which the program is recorded and a general processor reading out and executing the program from the memory, the memory may be semiconductor memory, a hard disk, or the like, and the general processor may be a CPU or the like). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, storing and retrieving information in memory, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-13 & 15 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 10, 13, & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by Minder, et al. (US20140074545A1), hereinafter Minder.
Regarding claim 1, Minder discloses an information processing method to be performed by an information processing device, the information processing method comprising (Abstract, [0067], [0089]-[0091]):
obtaining first profile information indicating a profile of a first worker and second profile information indicating a profile of a second worker ([0042]-[0043], [0046], at block 301, workflow data may be accessed, wherein the workflow data may include collaboration graphs, workflow data, task data, and the like, associated with users tracked by the system to in block 303 determine similarity between the user requesting a recommendation at block 201 and users associated with the workflow data, which includes contextual similarity determined if the users have collaborated in the same workspace or on the same workflow, utilized the same content, and the like, e.g., a user's profile may include content, users, workflows, workspaces, and the like that the user has interacted with as well as roles that the user may have filled in the workflows);
obtaining first work plan information indicating a work plan of the first worker and second work plan information indicating a work plan of the second worker ([0042]-[0045], at block 301, workflow data may be accessed, wherein the workflow data may include collaboration graphs, workflow data, task data, and the like, associated with users tracked by the system to in block 303 determine similarity between the user requesting a recommendation at block 201 and users associated with the workflow data by determining contextual similarity if the users have collaborated in the same workspace, the same workflow, utilized the same content);
deriving a first organizational distance between the first worker and the second worker in accordance with the first profile information and the second profile information ([0043]-[0045], block 303 determines similarity between the user requesting a recommendation at block 201 and users associated with the workflow data by determining social similarity by determining distances between users in a social graph and determining social similarity by determining distances between users in an organization graph);
deriving a first work relevance between a first work of the first worker at a time when processing is executed and a second work of the second worker at the time in accordance with the first work plan information and the second work plan information ([0043], [0046], block 303 determines similarity between the user requesting a recommendation at block 201 and users associated with the workflow data by determining contextual similarity determined if the users have collaborated in the same workspace or on the same workflow, utilized the same content, and the like, e.g., a user's profile may include content, users, workflows, workspaces, and the like that the user has interacted with as well as roles that the user may have filled in the workflows);
generating first information-to-be-presented in accordance with the first organizational distance and the first work relevance, the first information-to-be-presented being information to be presented to the first worker as the profile of the second worker ([0060]-[0062], at block 205, the n most similar users may be identified, n represents a configurable value that may be any value, at block 207, preferred items of the n most similar users identified at block 205 may be determined from each similar user, wherein the preferred items may include any type of item, such as workflows, users, contacts, tasks, documents, forms, calendar entries, conference rooms, etc., and at block 209, the lists of preferred items determined at block 207 may be merged into a single ordered list by sorting each similar user's list of preferred items based on the preference values, retaining only the most preferred items, [0052]-[0053], block 303, a number of different mechanisms that may be used to compute the similarity between two users, the results from each mechanism may be combined into a single user/user similarity matrix with a similarity rating as a real number value in the range [0 . . . 1] (or other similarly scaled values), and using the determined user similarities, an ordered list of the most similar users may be stored (e.g., in database 114) for each user); and
outputting the first information-to-be-presented ([0066], at block 217, a set of recommendations may be generated and returned to the user including the merge and sorted recommended items generated at block 215, and a computing device (e.g., server 110) may transmit some or all of the set of recommended items to a computing device associated with the user (e.g., computing device 102, 104, or 106) via a network (e.g., network 108)).
Regarding claim 6, Minder discloses the information processing method according to claim 1 (as above), wherein in the deriving of the first work relevance, the first work relevance is derived based on: whether a work space of the first work and a work space of the second work are same; whether a work object of the first work and a work object of the second work are same; and whether a work type of the first work and a work type of the second work are same ([0042]-[0045], block 303 determines similarity between the user requesting a recommendation at block 201 and users associated with the workflow data by determining contextual similarity if the users have collaborated in the same workspace, the same workflow, utilized the same content).
Regarding claim 10, Minder discloses the information processing method according to claim 1 (as above), further comprising: deriving a second ([0039], at block 201, a request for a recommendation may be received from a computing device associated with a user (e.g., computing device 102, 104, or 106 of FIG. 1) and can include an identification of the user making the request, the context of the user, a requested item (e.g., user, content, workspace, workflow, task, etc.), other search parameters (e.g., search strings, etc.), or the like, [0023], each computing device 102, 104, and 106 may be associated with one or more users registered with the system such that information relating to their activity within the system may be collected to drive recommendations (i.e. the request can be received from both a first and second users of devices 102, 104, and 106)) organizational distance between the first worker and the second worker in accordance with the first profile information and the second profile information ([0043]-[0045], block 303 determines similarity between the user requesting a recommendation at block 201 and users associated with the workflow data by determining social similarity by determining distances between users in a social graph and determining social similarity by determining distances between users in an organization graph);
deriving a second ([0039], at block 201, a request for a recommendation may be received from a computing device associated with a user (e.g., computing device 102, 104, or 106 of FIG. 1) and can include an identification of the user making the request, the context of the user, a requested item (e.g., user, content, workspace, workflow, task, etc.), other search parameters (e.g., search strings, etc.), or the like, [0023], each computing device 102, 104, and 106 may be associated with one or more users registered with the system such that information relating to their activity within the system may be collected to drive recommendations) work relevance between the first work and the second work in accordance with the first work plan information and the second work plan information ([0043], [0046], block 303 determines similarity between the user requesting a recommendation at block 201 and users associated with the workflow data by determining contextual similarity determined if the users have collaborated in the same workspace or on the same workflow, utilized the same content, and the like, e.g., a user's profile may include content, users, workflows, workspaces, and the like that the user has interacted with as well as roles that the user may have filled in the workflows);
generating second information-to-be-presented in accordance with the second organizational distance and the second work relevance ([0060]-[0062], at block 205, the n most similar users may be identified, n represents a configurable value that may be any value, at block 207, preferred items of the n most similar users identified at block 205 may be determined from each similar user, wherein the preferred items may include any type of item, such as workflows, users, contacts, tasks, documents, forms, calendar entries, conference rooms, etc., and at block 209, the lists of preferred items determined at block 207 may be merged into a single ordered list by sorting each similar user's list of preferred items based on the preference values, retaining only the most preferred items), the second information-to-be-presented being information to be presented to the second worker as the profile of the first worker ([0066], at block 217, a computing device (e.g., server 110) may transmit some or all of the set of recommended items to a computing device associated with the user (e.g., computing device 102, 104, or 106) via a network (e.g., network 108); and
outputting the second information-to-be-presented ([0066], at block 217, a set of recommendations may be generated and returned to the user including the merge and sorted recommended items generated at block 215, and a computing device (e.g., server 110) may transmit some or all of the set of recommended items to a computing device associated with the user (e.g., computing device 102, 104, or 106) via a network (e.g., network 108)).
Regarding claim 13, Minder discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for causing a computer to execute (Abstract, [0067], [0089]-[0091]) the information processing method according to claim 1 (as above).
Regarding claim 14, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1, respectively, and is, therefore, rejected on the same basis as claim 1. While claim 14 is directed toward an information processing device, Minder discloses an information processing device, as claimed. Abstract, [0067], [0089]-[0091].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minder, et al. (US20140074545A1), hereinafter Minder, in view of Heo (US 20210103426 A1), hereinafter Heo.
Regarding claim 2, Minder discloses the information processing method according to claim 1 (as above). Further, while Minder discloses all of the above and wherein in the outputting of the first information-to-be-presented, the first information-to-be-presented is output to a … device of the first worker ([0066], a computing device (e.g., server 110) may transmit some or all of the set of recommended items to a computing device associated with the user (e.g., computing device 102, 104, or 106) via a network (e.g., network 108), [0060]-[0062], at block 207, preferred items of the n most similar users identified at block 205 may be determined from each similar user, wherein the preferred items may include any type of item, such as workflows, users, etc.), Minder does not expressly disclose the following remaining elements, which however, are taught by further teachings in Heo.
Heo teaches wherein in the outputting of the first information-to-be-presented, the first information-to-be-presented is output to a wearable device of the first worker ([0108]-[0113], in S830, the wearable device 100 specifies the object for which the user requires information, wherein the object can be specified by an image from the front camera 120, e.g., the wearable device 100 can determine that the user is staring at a specific person based on image signals from the front camera 120, and determine that the user requires information (a name) about the specific person, in S840, the wearable device 100 retrieves information about a specified object, e.g., the name of the person and the relationship between the person and the user, and in S850, the wearable device 100 outputs retrieved object information by using at least one of the AR display 130 or the sound output device 140, the wearable device 100 can display the name of the person, the relationship between the person and the user, [0097], the relationship, e.g., colleague relationship).
Minder and Heo are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of identifying and presenting information associated with users. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Minder the ability to output the first information-to-be-presented, the first information-to-be-presented is output to a wearable device of the first worker, as taught by Heo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of outputting the first information-to-be-presented, the first information-to-be-presented is output to a wearable device of the first worker, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Minder with the aforementioned teachings of Heo in order to produce the added benefit of helping and reminding a person regarding information of another person when they are unable to recall the information. [0109].
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings of Minder and Heo teaches the information processing method according to claim 2 (as above). Further, while Minder discloses all of the above and wherein the … device includes … for presenting the first information-to-be-presented to the first worker by an image ([0066], a computing device (e.g., server 110) may transmit some or all of the set of recommended items to a computing device associated with the user (e.g., computing device 102, 104, or 106) via a network (e.g., network 108), e.g., each item in the list may include an identifier, name, and score, the identifier may include the system identifier for the recommended item, this may generally be hidden from the user and used by the application when the item is selected, and the name may include a user-visible name of an item that may be displayed in a user interface, [0060]-[0062], at block 207, preferred items of the n most similar users identified at block 205 may be determined from each similar user, wherein the preferred items may include any type of item, such as workflows, users, etc.), Minder does not expressly disclose the following remaining elements, which however, are taught by further teachings in Heo.
Heo teaches wherein the wearable device includes smart glasses for presenting the first information-to-be-presented to the first worker by an image ([0108]-[0113], in S830, the wearable device 100 specifies the object for which the user requires information, wherein the object can be specified by an image from the front camera 120, e.g., the wearable device 100 can determine that the user is staring at a specific person based on image signals from the front camera 120, and determine that the user requires information (a name) about the specific person, in S840, the wearable device 100 retrieves information about a specified object, e.g., the name of the person and the relationship between the person and the user, and in S850, the wearable device 100 outputs retrieved object information by using the AR display 130, e.g., the wearable device 100 can display, on the AR display 130, information about the person such that the information is superimposed on an actual image of the person, e.g., the wearable device 100 can display the name of the person, the relationship between the person and the user, [0097], the relationship, e.g., colleague relationship).
Minder and Heo are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of identifying and presenting information associated with users. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Minder the ability to output the first information-to-be-presented, the first information-to-be-presented is output to a wearable device of the first worker, as taught by Heo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of outputting the first information-to-be-presented, the first information-to-be-presented is output to a wearable device of the first worker, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Minder with the aforementioned teachings of Heo in order to produce the added benefit of helping and reminding a person regarding information of another person when they are unable to recall the information. [0109].
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings of Minder and Heo teaches the information processing method according to claim 2 (as above). Further, while Minder discloses all of the above and wherein the … device includes a … outputter that presents the first information-to-be-presented to the first worker ([0066], a computing device (e.g., server 110) may transmit some or all of the set of recommended items to a computing device associated with the user (e.g., computing device 102, 104, or 106) via a network (e.g., network 108), e.g., each item in the list may include an identifier, name, and score, the identifier may include the system identifier for the recommended item, this may generally be hidden from the user and used by the application when the item is selected, and the name may include a user-visible name of an item that may be displayed in a user interface, [0060]-[0062], at block 207, preferred items of the n most similar users identified at block 205 may be determined from each similar user, wherein the preferred items may include any type of item, such as workflows, users, etc.), Minder does not expressly disclose the following remaining elements, which however, are taught by further teachings in Heo.
Heo teaches wherein the wearable device includes a sound outputter that presents the first information-to-be-presented to the first worker by sound ([0108]-[0113], in S830, the wearable device 100 specifies the object for which the user requires information, wherein the object can be specified by an image from the front camera 120, e.g., the wearable device 100 can determine that the user is staring at a specific person based on image signals from the front camera 120, and determine that the user requires information (a name) about the specific person, in S840, the wearable device 100 retrieves information about a specified object, e.g., the name of the person and the relationship between the person and the user, and in S850, the wearable device 100 outputs retrieved object information by using the sound output device 140, e.g., the wearable device 100 can display the name of the person, the relationship between the person and the user, [0097], the relationship, e.g., colleague relationship).
Minder and Heo are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of identifying and presenting information associated with users. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Minder the ability to output the first information-to-be-presented, the first information-to-be-presented is output to a wearable device of the first worker, as taught by Heo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of outputting the first information-to-be-presented, the first information-to-be-presented is output to a wearable device of the first worker, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Minder with the aforementioned teachings of Heo in order to produce the added benefit of helping and reminding a person regarding information of another person when they are unable to recall the information. [0109].
Regarding claim 15, Minder discloses an information processing system comprising (Abstract, [0067], [0089]-[0091]):
the information processing device according to claim 14 (as above).
Further, while Minder discloses all of the above and a … device that is … of the first worker, wherein the outputter outputs the first information-to-be-presented to the … device, and the … device presents the first information-to-be-presented to the first worker ([0066], a computing device (e.g., server 110) may transmit some or all of the set of recommended items to a computing device associated with the user (e.g., computing device 102, 104, or 106) via a network (e.g., network 108), [0060]-[0062], at block 207, preferred items of the n most similar users identified at block 205 may be determined from each similar user, wherein the preferred items may include any type of item, such as workflows, users, etc.), Minder does not expressly disclose the following remaining elements, which however, are taught by further teachings in Heo.
Heo teaches a wearable device that is wearable on a body of the first worker, wherein the outputter outputs the first information-to-be-presented to the wearable device, and the wearable device presents the first information-to-be-presented to the first worker ([0108]-[0113], in S830, the wearable device 100 specifies the object for which the user requires information, wherein the object can be specified by an image from the front camera 120, e.g., the wearable device 100 can determine that the user is staring at a specific person based on image signals from the front camera 120, and determine that the user requires information (a name) about the specific person, in S840, the wearable device 100 retrieves information about a specified object, e.g., the name of the person and the relationship between the person and the user, and in S850, the wearable device 100 outputs retrieved object information by using the AR display 130 or the sound output device 140, e.g., the wearable device 100 can display, on the AR display 130, information about the person such that the information is superimposed on an actual image of the person, e.g., the wearable device 100 can display the name of the person, the relationship between the person and the user, [0097], the relationship, e.g., colleague relationship).
Minder and Heo are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of identifying and presenting information associated with users. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Minder the ability to output the first information-to-be-presented, the first information-to-be-presented is output to a wearable device of the first worker, as taught by Heo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of outputting the first information-to-be-presented, the first information-to-be-presented is output to a wearable device of the first worker, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Minder with the aforementioned teachings of Heo in order to produce the added benefit of helping and reminding a person regarding information of another person when they are unable to recall the information. [0109].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minder, et al. (US20140074545A1), hereinafter Minder, in view of Davar, et al. (US 20160132811 A1), hereinafter Davar.
Regarding claim 5, Minder discloses the information processing method according to claim 1 (as above). Further, while Minder discloses all of the above and wherein in the deriving of the first organizational distance, the first organizational distance is derived based on: whether a first company to which the first worker belongs and a second company to which the second worker belongs are same ([0030], an organization graph for a company may include nodes representing employees and edges representing manager/subordinate/peer relationships between the employees, [0043]-[0046], block 303 determines similarity between the user requesting a recommendation at block 201 and users associated with the workflow data by determining social similarity by determining distances between users in a social graph and determining social similarity by determining distances between users in an organization graph and determining contextual similarity determined if the users have collaborated in the same workspace or on the same workflow, utilized the same content, and the like, e.g., a user's profile may include content, users, workflows, workspaces, and the like that the user has interacted with as well as roles that the user may have filled in the workflows), Minder does not expressly disclose the following remaining elements, which however, are taught by further teachings in Davar.
Davar teaches whether a first company to which the first worker belongs and a second company to which the second worker belongs are same; whether the first company and the second company belong to a same group; whether the first company and the second company belong to a same industry; and whether the first company and the second company belong to similar industries ([0081]-[0082], similarity between organizations may be inferred from an analysis of social networks by determining which employees of organizations are connected, this assumes that people that share similar profession interests or know each other might work for similar organizations, which is truer for social contacts within professional networks and industry-specific media, particularly when several employees of one organization are connected to several employees of another organization, the peer agent may further determine the industries of the organizations, the agent assigns this connectedness score similarity if the organizations are in similar industries, and companies may be determined to be peers by the similarity of their attribute data, [0079], organizations may be considered similar because they have many attributes in common, and two organizations in the same industry are considered peers, and comparing attribute data, such as revenue, location, and specialism, can further refine the similarity score).
Minder and Davar are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of identifying similarity of organizations of people. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Minder the ability to determine whether a first company to which the first worker belongs and a second company to which the second worker belongs are same, whether the first company and the second company belong to a same group, whether the first company and the second company belong to a same industry, and whether the first company and the second company belong to similar industries, as taught by Davar, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of deriving of the first organizational distance, the first organizational distance is derived based on: whether a first company to which the first worker belongs and a second company to which the second worker belongs are same, whether the first company and the second company belong to a same group, whether the first company and the second company belong to a same industry, and whether the first company and the second company belong to similar industries, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Minder with the aforementioned teachings of Davar in order to produce the added benefit of improving predictive and suggestive power to help user. [0006].
Claims 8 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minder, et al. (US20140074545A1), hereinafter Minder, in view of Baeck, et al. (US 20140180946 A1), hereinafter Baeck.
Regarding claim 8, Minder discloses the information processing method according to claim 1 (as above). Further, while Minder discloses all of the above and wherein in the generating of the first information-to-be-presented, a first presentation pattern is selected from among a plurality of presentation patterns in accordance with the first organizational distance and the first work relevance ([0060]-[0062], at block 205, the n most similar users may be identified, n represents a configurable value that may be any value, at block 207, preferred items of the n most similar users identified at block 205 may be determined from each similar user, wherein the preferred items may include any type of item, such as workflows, users, contacts, tasks, documents, forms, calendar entries, conference rooms, etc., and at block 209, the lists of preferred items determined at block 207 may be merged into a single ordered list by sorting each similar user's list of preferred items based on the preference values, retaining only the most preferred items, [0052]-[0053], block 303, a number of different mechanisms that may be used to compute the similarity between two users, the results from each mechanism may be combined into a single user/user similarity matrix with a similarity rating as a real number value in the range [0 . . . 1] (or other similarly scaled values), and using the determined user similarities, an ordered list of the most similar users may be stored (e.g., in database 114) for each user), and the first information-to-be-presented is generated in accordance with the first presentation pattern, and the plurality of presentation patterns include ([0066], a computing device (e.g., server 110) may transmit some or all of the set of recommended items to a computing device associated with the user (e.g., computing device 102, 104, or 106) via a network (e.g., network 108), e.g., each item in the list may include an identifier, name, and score, the identifier may include the system identifier for the recommended item, this may generally be hidden from the user and used by the application when the item is selected, and the name may include a user-visible name of an item that may be displayed in a user interface, [0060]-[0062], at block 207, preferred items of the n most similar users identified at block 205 may be determined from each similar user, wherein the preferred items may include any type of item, such as workflows, users, etc. ), Minder does not expressly disclose the following remaining elements, which however, are taught by further teachings in Baeck.
Baeck teaches the plurality of presentation patterns include: a presentation pattern including a person's name, a department name, and a company name; a presentation pattern including a family name of a person’s name, a department name, and a company name; a presentation pattern including a department name and a company name; a presentation pattern including a company name; and a presentation pattern including an industry name ([0135], [0138], [0141], fig. 15A, a user interface 1500a for displaying referrer objects, with the organization object at the center, 1502, which Examiner notes is depicted in legend 1530, as reproduced below, as the Requestor of the referrer, can arrange referrer objects representing referrers that have higher degrees of association (for example, referrer object 1504) nearer to the organization object 1502 relative to referrer objects representing referrers that have lower degrees of association (for example, referrer 1506), displaying an object 1528 to display information describing the referrer represented by the referrer object 1516 (such as personal and professional information, and other suitable information), and Examiner notes the personal and professional information displayed in 1528 includes the first and last name (Smith Johnson), the position (Marketing Manager) (i.e., department and industry), and the name of the company (Sales Forces Inc.) of the referrer, [0112], personal information includes name, contact information, and professional information includes present employment, employer, industry).
PNG
media_image1.png
356
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Minder and Baeck are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of identifying organizational distance of people. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Minder the ability for the plurality of presentation patterns to include: a presentation pattern including a person's name, a department name, and a company name, a presentation pattern including a family name of a person’s name, a department name, and a company name, a presentation pattern including a department name and a company name, a presentation pattern including a company name, and a presentation pattern including an industry name, as taught by Baeck, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of the plurality of presentation patterns including: a presentation pattern including a person's name, a department name, and a company name, a presentation pattern including a family name of a person’s name, a department name, and a company name, a presentation pattern including a department name and a company name, a presentation pattern including a company name, and a presentation pattern including an industry name, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Minder with the aforementioned teachings of Baeck in order to produce the added benefit of helping identifying the degree of association of each person of multiple persons with an organization. [0005].
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings of Minder and Baeck teach the information processing method according to claim 8 (as above). Further, while Minder discloses all of the above and wherein the plurality of presentation patterns include a presentation pattern ([0066], a computing device (e.g., server 110) may transmit some or all of the set of recommended items to a computing device associated with the user (e.g., computing device 102, 104, or 106) via a network (e.g., network 108), e.g., each item in the list may include an identifier, name, and score, the identifier may include the system identifier for the recommended item, this may generally be hidden from the user and used by the application when the item is selected, and the name may include a user-visible name of an item that may be displayed in a user interface, [0060]-[0062], at block 207, preferred items of the n most similar users identified at block 205 may be determined from each similar user, wherein the preferred items may include any type of item, such as workflows, users, etc.), Minder does not expressly disclose the following remaining elements, which however, are taught by further teachings in Baeck.
Baeck teaches wherein the plurality of presentation patterns include a presentation pattern including a family name of a person's name and a company name ([0135], [0138], [0141], fig. 15A, a user interface 1500a for displaying referrer objects, with the organization object at the center, 1502, which Examiner notes is depicted in legend 1530, as reproduced below, as the Requestor of the referrer, can arrange referrer objects representing referrers that have higher degrees of association (for example, referrer object 1504) nearer to the organization object 1502 relative to referrer objects representing referrers that have lower degrees of association (for example, referrer 1506), displaying an object 1528 to display information describing the referrer represented by the referrer object 1516 (such as personal and professional information, and other suitable information), and Examiner notes the personal and professional information displayed in 1528 includes the first and last name (Smith Johnson), the position (Marketing Manager) (i.e., department and industry), and the name of the company (Sales Forces Inc.) of the referrer, [0112], personal information includes name, contact information, and professional information includes present employment, employer, industry).
PNG
media_image1.png
356
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Minder and Baeck are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of identifying organizational distance of people. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Minder the ability for the plurality of presentation patterns to include a presentation pattern including a family name of a person's name and a company name, as taught by Baeck, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of the plurality of presentation patterns including a presentation pattern including a family name of a person's name and a company name, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Minder with the aforementioned teachings of Baeck in order to produce the added benefit of helping identifying the degree of association of each person of multiple persons with an organization. [0005].
Claims 7, 11, & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minder, et al. (US20140074545A1), hereinafter Minder, in view of Lang, et al. (US 20150269383 A1), hereinafter Lang.
Regarding claim 7, Minder discloses the information processing method according to claim 1 (as above). Further, while Minder discloses all of the above and wherein in the generating of the first information-to-be-presented, the shorter the first organizational distance is and the higher the first work relevance is, … information is generated as the first information-to-be-presented ([0043]-[0045], block 303 determines similarity between the user requesting a recommendation at block 201 and users associated with the workflow data by determining social similarity by determining distances between users in a social graph, determining social similarity by determining distances between users in an organization graph, determining contextual similarity determined if the users have collaborated in the same workspace or on the same workflow, utilized the same content, and the like, e.g., a user's profile may include content, users, workflows, workspaces, and the like that the user has interacted with as well as roles that the user may have filled in the workflows, [0060]-[0062], at block 205, the n most similar users may be identified, n represents a configurable value that may be any value, at block 207, preferred items of the n most similar users identified at block 205 may be determined from each similar user, wherein the preferred items may include any type of item, such as workflows, users, etc. and at block 209, the lists of preferred items determined at block 207 may be merged into a single ordered list by sorting each similar user's list of preferred items based on the preference values, retaining only the most preferred items, [0066], at block 217, a set of recommendations may be generated and returned to the user including the merge and sorted recommended items generated at block 215, and a computing device (e.g., server 110) may transmit some or all of the set of recommended items to a computing device associated with the user (e.g., computing device 102, 104, or 106) via a network (e.g., network 108)), Minder does not expressly disclose the following remaining elements, which however, are taught by further teachings in Lang.
Lang teaches wherein in the generating of the first information-to-be-presented, the shorter the first organizational distance is and the higher the first work relevance is, more information is generated as the first information-to-be-presented ([0837], [0844], proximity based access control (PBAC) dimensions of the invention include “Organizational Proximity" is proximity of an organizational position associated with an accessor in relation to the organizational position associated with an accessed resource, whereby proximity depends on the organizational information source used, e.g. organizational hierarchy, e.g., "everyone can access resources associated with any subordinates, but no superiors" or "team leaders can access resources associated with first-degree sister teams,” [0060]-[0064], in proximity based access control (PBAC), the distance function between proximity attributes defines a distance, PBAC provides information to a subject is determined need-to-know based on proximity attributes, it will dynamically adjust data access for individuals based on proximity profiles, i.e., their proximity to others, organizations in terms of attributes (e.g., location, mission, assignment), e.g., the closer something/someone is in proximity to the requestor, the more important it is to that person and the more details the requestor will need about it, proximity can be based on for example organizational proximity (e.g., relationships in the chain of command), operational proximity (e.g., supported/supporting units, common missions), business process proximity, etc., e.g., a team leader for a first responder team responding to an accident may want to gain insight into data from other teams in order to better understand what other teams are planning or doing (organizational proximity) in order to coordinate better, or obtain assessments and other information developed by a supported already-deployed team (operational proximity) in order to plan more effectively).
Minder and Lang are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of identifying information to present to be people based on the organizational distance of people. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Minder the ability to generate of the first information-to-be-presented, the shorter the first organizational distance is and the higher the first work relevance is, more information is generated as the first information-to-be-presented, as taught by Lang, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of generating of the first information-to-be-presented, the shorter the first organizational distance is and the higher the first work relevance is, more information is generated as the first information-to-be-presented, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Minder with the aforementioned teachings of Lang in order to produce the added benefit of improving the effectiveness of the access control by maximizing valid access while reducing overprovisioning. [0766].
Regarding claim 11, Minder discloses the information processing method according to claim 10 (as above). Further, while Minder discloses all of the above and wherein in the generating of the first information-to-be-presented, a first presentation pattern is selected from among a plurality of presentation patterns ([0039], at block 201, a request for a recommendation may be received from a computing device associated with a user (e.g., computing device 102, 104, or 106 of FIG. 1) and can include an identification of the user making the request, the context of the user, a requested item (e.g., user, content, workspace, workflow, task, etc.), other search parameters (e.g., search strings, etc.), or the like, [0023], each computing device 102, 104, and 106 may be associated with one or more users registered with the system such that information relating to their activity within the system may be collected to drive recommendations (i.e. the request can be received from both a first and second users of devices 102, 104, and 106)) in accordance with the first organizational distance and the first work relevance ([0043]-[0045], block 303 determines similarity between the user requesting a recommendation at block 201 and users associated with the workflow data by determining social similarity by determining distances between users in a social graph, determining social similarity by determining distances between users in an organization graph, and determining contextual similarity determined if the users have collaborated in the same workspace or on the same workflow, utilized the same content, and the like, e.g., a user's profile may include content, users, workflows, workspaces, and the like that the user has interacted with as well as roles that the user may have filled in the workflows), and the first information-to-be-presented is generated in accordance with the first presentation pattern, in the generating of the second information-to-be-presented ([0060]-[0062], at block 205, the n most similar users may be identified, n represents a configurable value that may be any value, at block 207, preferred items of the n most similar users identified at block 205 may be determined from each similar user, wherein the preferred items may include any type of item, such as workflows, users, contacts, tasks, documents, forms, calendar entries, conference rooms, etc., and at block 209, the lists of preferred items determined at block 207 may be merged into a single ordered list by sorting each similar user's list of preferred items based on the preference values, retaining only the most preferred items, [0066], at block 217, a computing device (e.g., server 110) may transmit some or all of the set of recommended items to a computing device associated with the user (e.g., computing device 102, 104, or 106) via a network (e.g., network 108)), a second presentation pattern is selected from among the plurality of presentation patterns ([0039], at block 201, a request for a recommendation may be received from a computing device associated with a user (e.g., computing device 102, 104, or 106 of FIG. 1) and can include an identification of the user making the request, the context of the user, a requested item (e.g., user, content, workspace, workflow, task, etc.), other search parameters (e.g., search strings, etc.), or the like, [0023], each computing device 102, 104, and 106 may be associated with one or more users registered with the system such that information relating to their activity within the system may be collected to drive recommendations (i.e. the request can be received from both a first and second users of devices 102, 104, and 106)) in accordance with the second organizational distance and the second work relevance ([0043]-[0045], block 303 determines similarity between the user requesting a recommendation at block 201 and users associated with the workflow data by determining social similarity by determining distances between users in a social graph, determining social similarity by determining distances between users in an organization graph, and determining contextual similarity determined if the users have collaborated in the same workspace or on the same workflow, utilized the same content, and the like, e.g., a user's profile may include content, users, workflows, workspaces, and the like that the user has interacted with as well as roles that the user may have filled in the workflows), and the second information-to-be-presented is generated in accordance with the second presentation pattern ([0060]-[0062], at block 205, the n most similar users may be identified, n represents a configurable value that may be any value, at block 207, preferred items of the n most similar users identified at block 205 may be determined from each similar user, wherein the preferred items may include any type of item, such as workflows, users, contacts, tasks, documents, forms, calendar entries, conference rooms, etc., and at block 209, the lists of preferred items determined at block 207 may be merged into a single ordered list by sorting each similar user's list of preferred items based on the preference values, retaining only the most preferred items, [0066], at block 217, a computing device (e.g., server 110) may transmit some or all of the set of recommended items to a computing device associated with the user (e.g., computing device 102, 104, or 106) via a network (e.g., network 108)), Minder does not expressly disclose the following remaining elements, which however, are taught by further teachings in Lang.
Lang teaches wherein in the generating of the first information-to-be-presented, a first presentation pattern is selected from among a plurality of presentation patterns in accordance with the first organizational distance and the first work relevance, and the first information-to-be-presented is generated in accordance with the first presentation pattern, in the generating of the second information-to-be-presented, a second presentation pattern is selected from among the plurality of presentation patterns in accordance with the second organizational distance and the second work relevance, and the second information-to-be-presented is generated in accordance with the second presentation pattern, and when a condition is satisfied, the second presentation pattern is different from the first presentation pattern ([0837], [0844], proximity based access control (PBAC) dimensions of the invention include “Organizational Proximity" is proximity of an organizational position associated with an accessor in relation to the organizational position associated with an accessed resource, whereby proximity depends on the organizational information source used, e.g. organizational hierarchy, e.g., "everyone can access resources associated with any subordinates, but no superiors" or "team leaders can access resources associated with first-degree sister teams,” [0060]-[0064], in proximity based access control (PBAC), the distance function between proximity attributes defines a distance, PBAC provides information to a subject is determined need-to-know based on proximity attributes, it will dynamically adjust data access for individuals based on proximity profiles, i.e., their proximity to others, organizations in terms of attributes (e.g., location, mission, assignment), e.g., the closer something/someone is in proximity to the requestor, the more important it is to that person and the more details the requestor will need about it, proximity can be based on for example organizational proximity (e.g., relationships in the chain of command), operational proximity (e.g., supported/supporting units, common missions), business process proximity, etc., e.g., a team leader for a first responder team responding to an accident may want to gain insight into data from other teams in order to better understand what other teams are planning or doing (organizational proximity) in order to coordinate better, or obtain assessments and other information developed by a supported already-deployed team (operational proximity) in order to plan more effectively).
Minder and Lang are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of identifying information to present to be people based on the organizational distance of people. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Minder the ability to generate of the first and second information-to-be-presented, and when a condition is satisfied, the second presentation pattern is different from the first presentation pattern, as taught by Lang, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of generating the first and second information-to-be-presented, and when a condition is satisfied, the second presentation pattern is different from the first presentation pattern, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Minder with the aforementioned teachings of Lang in order to produce the added benefit of improving the effectiveness of the access control by maximizing valid access while reducing overprovisioning. [0766].
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings of Minder and Lang teaches the information processing method according to claim 11 (as above). Further, while Minder discloses all of the above and a role of one of the first worker and the second worker in the first work and the second work … a role of an other of the first worker and the second worker ([0039], other users requesting information submitted it to the person in the organizational chart who is their supervisor or boss), Minder does not expressly disclose the following remaining elements, which however, are taught by further teachings in Lang.
Lang teaches wherein the condition is that a role of one of the first worker and the second worker in the first work and the second work is higher than a role of an other of the first worker and the second worker ([0837], [0844], proximity based access control (PBAC) dimensions of the invention include “Organizational Proximity" is proximity of an organizational position associated with an accessor in relation to the organizational position associated with an accessed resource, whereby proximity depends on the organizational information source used, e.g. organizational hierarchy, e.g., "everyone can access resources associated with any subordinates, but no superiors" or "team leaders can access resources associated with first-degree sister teams,” [0060]-[0064], in proximity based access control (PBAC), the distance function between proximity attributes defines a distance, PBAC provides information to a subject is determined need-to-know based on proximity attributes, it will dynamically adjust data access for individuals based on proximity profiles, i.e., their proximity to others, organizations in terms of attributes (e.g., location, mission, assignment), e.g., the closer something/someone is in proximity to the requestor, the more important it is to that person and the more details the requestor will need about it, proximity can be based on for example organizational proximity (e.g., relationships in the chain of command), operational proximity (e.g., supported/supporting units, common missions), business process proximity, etc., e.g., a team leader for a first responder team responding to an accident may want to gain insight into data from other teams in order to better understand what other teams are planning or doing (organizational proximity) in order to coordinate better, or obtain assessments and other information developed by a supported already-deployed team (operational proximity) in order to plan more effectively).
Minder and Lang are analogous fields of invention because both address the problem of identifying information to present to be people based on the organizational distance of people. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system of Minder the ability for the condition to be that a role of one of the first worker and the second worker in the first work and the second work is higher than a role of an other of the first worker and the second worker, as taught by Lang, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would produce the predictable results of the condition is that a role of one of the first worker and the second worker in the first work and the second work is higher than a role of another of the first worker and the second worker, as claimed. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Minder with the aforementioned teachings of Lang in order to produce the added benefit of improving the effectiveness of the access control by maximizing valid access while reducing overprovisioning. [0766].
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sandu, et al. (US 20200301571 A1) disclosing techniques for customization of user interfaces including a display layout of profile information of a person of interest viewed by the first user on the first client device based on viewing context generally refers to suitable information related to viewing activities of the viewer and the person of interest including relationship distance within an organization. Abstract, [0008];
Bickell (US 20140081692 A1) disclosing techniques for generating a list of similar organization members are described by generating a plurality of proximity values based on weights of elements for organization information regarding members including organizational hierarchy level, permissions, department, reporting manager, skills, work experience. Abstract, [0041].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES A GUILIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHARLES GUILIANO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights