The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In response to the supplemental response communication received on 07/23/2025, the following is a Final Office Action for Application No. 18130829.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
As per the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claims are in favor of eligibility per Prong One of Step 2A, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion) and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules of instructions). Since the recitation of the claims falls into at least one of the above Groupings, there is a basis for providing further analysis with regard to Prong Two of Step 2A to determine whether the recitation of an abstract idea is deduced to being directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the claims are in favor of eligibility per Prong Two of Step 2A, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The database, processor and/or memory medium is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing/transmitting data. This generic processor server limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, database, processor and/or memory medium to inter alia perform the function of determining a number of project manager experts (PMEs) needed for the firm by multiplying the correlation coefficient by a number of audit managers of the firm and adjusting the result is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In other words, the present claims use a generic processing device and memory medium to inter alia perform the function of determining a number of project manager experts (PMEs) needed for the firm by multiplying the correlation coefficient by a number of audit managers of the firm and adjusting the result which is a concept that can be performed in the human mind. The processor is merely used to perform the function(s), and the processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since there are no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2B. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the claims are in favor of eligibility per Step 2B, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Therein, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of: database, processor and/or memory medium. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, database, processor and/or memory medium to inter alia perform the function of determining a number of project manager experts (PMEs) needed for the firm by multiplying the correlation coefficient by a number of audit managers of the firm and adjusting the result is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic computer/memory type structure. Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include the non-limiting or non-exclusive examples of MPEP § 2106.05. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
In an effort to further expedite prosecution, see: Appendix 1 to the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, Life Sciences & Data Processing Examples, October 2019 30, Example 46. Livestock Management. Per claim 1 of Example 46, the memory, display and processor are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are a memory, display and processor) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. As an exemplary direction for similar claim limitations to be eligible, see claims 2-4 of Example 46.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on: 18130829 filed 04/04/2023 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63331040, filed 04/14/2022.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In adhering to the 2019 PEG, Step 1 is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Herein, the claims fall within statutory class of process or machine or manufacture. Hence, the claims qualify as potentially eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C §101. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2. Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
a first database storing firm engagement data including a plural number of years profitability, risk, overhead rates and audit managers' utilization averages for plural engagements of a firm across multiple systems;a memory for storing application code; and a processor configured to use the application code to:isolate and extract from the first database the plural number of years profitability, risk, overhead rates and audit managers' utilization averages;from the isolated data, produce a structured dataset comprising the utilization and profitability averages, risk and overhead rates;store the structured dataset in a second database configured for regression analysis;determine a correlation coefficient using the profitability and the utilization averages and overhead rates from the second database using a linear regression formula; and determine a number of project manager experts (PMEs) needed for the firm by multiplying the correlation coefficient by a number of audit managers of the firm, and adjusting the result based on one or more values of the risk.
[OR]
storing plural number of years profitability, risk, overhead rates and audit managers' utilization averages for plural engagements of a firm in a first database;isolating and extracting the plural number of years profitability, risk, overhead rates and audit managers' utilization averages for plural engagements of a firm;producing a structured dataset comprising the utilization and profitability averages, risk and overhead rates;storing the structured dataset in a second database configured for regression analysis;determining a correlation coefficient using the profitability and the utilization averages, and overhead rates from the second database using a linear regression formula; anddetermining a number of project manager experts (PMEs) needed for the firm by multiplying the correlation coefficient by a number of audit managers of the firm, and adjusting the result based one more or more values of the risk.
Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion) and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules of instructions). Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The database, memory and/or processor is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing/transmitting data. This generic database, memory and/or processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, determine a number of project manager experts (PMEs) needed for the firm by a database, memory and/or processor is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2B. Therein, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of: database, memory and/or processor. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, determine a number of project manager experts (PMEs) needed for the firm by a database, memory and/or processor is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic computer/memory type structure at ¶0025 wherein “The processor 106 may be a general-purpose central processing unit (CPU), implemented by at least one of electronic units such as an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), one or more integrated circuits, a digital signal processor (DSP), a programmable logic device (PLD), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a processor, a controller, a microcontroller, and/or a microprocessor.” Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine/manufacture for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims). The dependent claims do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101. Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20080114628 A1) hereinafter referred to as Johnson in view of Mintz (US 20210134447 A1) hereinafter referred to as Mintz.
Johnson teaches:
Claim 1. A system, comprising:
a first database storing firm engagement data including a plural number of years profitability, risk, overhead rates and audit managers' utilization averages for plural engagements of a firm across multiple systems (Fig.2A and ¶0036 According to another aspect of the invention, designing data repositories layer 210 (operation 260) may include defining one or more data centers 215b-c for an enterprise. Data centers 215b-c may include one or more operational data repositories 215b configured for transaction management and ongoing efforts, and/or one or more data warehouses 215c configured for archiving older data that is valuable for auditing, best practices, intellectual property, or other things. Moreover, designing data repositories operation 260 may assign separate data stores to distinct business units within operational data repositories 215b and/or data warehouses 215c, where operational data repositories 215b may manage "active" workspaces, documents, or other materials for each business unit, and data warehouses 215c may archive workspaces, documents, or other materials for each business unit. ¶0090 According to one aspect of the invention, displayed contract data may be edited by selecting settings options 1216. When a contract manager, contract delivery team member, or others with appropriate permissions selects settings option 1216, display 1220 may be configured to display options for editing any or all of the contract data. The contract data (e.g., stored in data repository layer 210 of FIG. 2) may then be updated to reflect changes. Editing contract data may include editing one or more aspects of the contract summary, including the contract name, status, review team, or other aspects of the contract. ¶0038 According to another aspect of the invention, an integrated services layer 230 may be constructed in an operation 270 to communicate with enterprise proposal management system services layer 220 to provide enterprise specific functionality. Integrated services layer may be constructed in operation 270 to own and/or reference data and/or documents in the data repositories 210 by passing through application program interfaces designed in operation 265 and associated with enterprise proposal management system services layer 220 also designed in operation 265. Integrated services layer 230 may include, among other things, services enabling business-specific functionality such as…. Each service of integrated services 235a-e may own or reference certain data and/or documents (by way of enterprise proposal management system services layer 220) to create, modify, update, and/or delete data and/or documents. Integrated services layer 230 may also include one or more services that enable interaction with external and/or third-party systems, thereby providing updated information from external content stores and data repositories. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that integrated services 230 may enable other functions, features, and implementations, and specific services may be added, modified, or removed without departing from the scope of the invention);
a memory for storing application code; and a processor configured to use the application code to (CL. 65. A computer readable medium containing computer executable instructions for managing proposal related tasks and data for an entity, the proposal related tasks including one or more tasks for managing a proposal lifecycle, the proposal related data including data stored in one or more data repositories derived from one or more past, present, and/or anticipated proposal opportunities, the computer-executable instructions collectively operable when executed on a processor to: develop business strategies for a proposal using the data in the data repositories. ¶0009 the proposal execution module may collate information from various enterprise areas, such as marketing, human resources, contracts, resource planning, operations, procurement, finance, and others to develop effective proposals that best respond to customer needs. During proposal execution, an organization may respond to these needs by evaluating submission deadlines, bid/no-bid issues, bid schedules, or other issues, and the proposal execution module may provide a solution for overseeing an entire process of developing winning strategies for the proposal. The proposal execution module may provide one or more tools to manage scheduling and planning through assigning resources, documents, tasks, and/or deliverables to team members, as well as providing information and status to various teams within the enterprise):
isolate and extract from the first database the plural number of years profitability, risk, overhead rates and audit managers' utilization averages (¶0036 According to another aspect of the invention, designing data repositories layer 210 (operation 260) may include defining one or more data centers 215b-c for an enterprise. Data centers 215b-c may include one or more operational data repositories 215b configured for transaction management and ongoing efforts, and/or one or more data warehouses 215c configured for archiving older data that is valuable for auditing, best practices, intellectual property, or other things. Moreover, designing data repositories operation 260 may assign separate data stores to distinct business units within operational data repositories 215b and/or data warehouses 215c, where operational data repositories 215b may manage "active" workspaces, documents, or other materials for each business unit, and data warehouses 215c may archive workspaces, documents, or other materials for each business unit. ¶0056 access to inactive proposals may be limited to personnel that had access to the proposal while it was active, and the proposal may be excluded from global searches to improve quality of the searches by excluding stale information and preventing dilution of relative content. The proposal may be moved to an archive data repository after an extended length of time (e.g., after four years or other configurable length of time), at which time the proposal may be accessed through archive library module 314 of FIG. 3.);
from the isolated data, produce a structured dataset comprising the utilization and profitability averages, risk and overhead rates (¶0036 According to another aspect of the invention, designing data repositories layer 210 (operation 260) may include defining one or more data centers 215b-c for an enterprise. Data centers 215b-c may include one or more operational data repositories 215b configured for transaction management and ongoing efforts, and/or one or more data warehouses 215c configured for archiving older data that is valuable for auditing, best practices, intellectual property, or other things. Moreover, designing data repositories operation 260 may assign separate data stores to distinct business units within operational data repositories 215b and/or data warehouses 215c, where operational data repositories 215b may manage "active" workspaces, documents, or other materials for each business unit, and data warehouses 215c may archive workspaces, documents, or other materials for each business unit. ¶0053 An option may be provided to upload one or more of the documents to customer relationship management Systems (e.g., proposal documents stored in an operational data repositories 215b or data warehouse 21 5c may be mirrored or otherwise replicated in customer relationship management Systems 215d to associate the documents with a customer, vendor, etc.). For example, the uploaded materials may be evaluated for win themes and other characteristics, which may be associated with a proposal or individual sections of the proposal. Moreover, individual sections may be automatically merged to create a complete proposal or routed to various program areas or business units (e.g., for finance or profitability analysis) and/or stored in secured data repositories for classified or other sensitive materials.);
store the structured dataset in a second database configured for regression analysis (Fig.2A and ¶0085 After bid process 1102a-n is completed and a new bid opportunity created, the answers to the qualifying and/or strategic questions and the relative weights may be correlated to generate a win score denoting a likelihood of the enterprise winning the proposal. An option may be provided to submit the bid opportunity to a bid board, where bid centers 1004a-n may provide a bid board manager option to assign one or more bid boards to a bid (e.g., based on business unit, for all opportunities, or according to other criteria). For example, a bid board may be created for a specific business unit (e.g., Managed Services), and a new bid center opportunity with the business unit may be submitted to the bid board for the business unit. Bid board manager option may include one or more fields for names, e-mail addresses; a business unit, or other information relating to a bid board manager. Options may be provided to create new business units and/or to add additional board members. ¶0036 According to another aspect of the invention, designing data repositories layer 210 (operation 260) may include defining one or more data centers 215b-c for an enterprise. Data centers 215b-c may include one or more operational data repositories 215b configured for transaction management and ongoing efforts, and/or one or more data warehouses 215c configured for archiving older data that is valuable for auditing, best practices, intellectual property, or other things. Moreover, designing data repositories operation 260 may assign separate data stores to distinct business units within operational data repositories 215b and/or data warehouses 215c, where operational data repositories 215b may manage "active" workspaces, documents, or other materials for each business unit, and data warehouses 215c may archive workspaces, documents, or other materials for each business unit.);
determine a correlation coefficient using the profitability and the utilization averages and overhead rates from the second database using a linear regression formula (Fig.2A and ¶0085 After bid process 1102a-n is completed and a new bid opportunity created, the answers to the qualifying and/or strategic questions and the relative weights may be correlated to generate a win score denoting a likelihood of the enterprise winning the proposal.); and
determine a number of project manager experts (PMEs) needed for the firm by multiplying the correlation coefficient by a number of audit managers of the firm, and adjusting the result based on one or more values of the risk (¶0081 the list of bids for approval may include a list of pending bids for an approving entity (e.g., the user is a business development manager, proposal manager, proposal delivery team member, or other assigned to a proposal). The list of top business development managers may include the name of one or more business development managers and a number of opportunities that the business development managers have delivered for the enterprise. The list of recently approved bids may include a list of approved opportunities, which may be useful in developing similar bids. Correlatively, strategies may be avoided when the list of approved opportunities includes opportunities that were eventually lost or otherwise deemed less than optimal. The under consideration view may enable retrieving bid opportunities by client, industry, or other criteria ¶0086 Bid centers 1104a-n may also provide options to view bid center reports according to business unit, business development manager, or other criteria. For example, upon selecting a bid center report, display 1108 may include a list of opportunity names, business development points of contact, bid status, business units, bid scores, operations points of contact, proposals points of contact, evaluation dates, and/or other information for each bid within the selected bid center ¶0103 Upon a contract manager, contract delivery team member, or others with appropriate permissions selecting competitive analysis option 1212, display 1220 may be configured to display one or more of the following related to a specific customer or competitor: one or more current contract teams (e.g., contract teams working to deliver a contract for the customer), one or more subject matter experts, previous approvers, and/or previous writers (e.g., subject matter experts and/or contract writers and their respective roles for a contract)… Display 1220 may also include names of subject matter experts, their roles/expertise, and contract names for which they have previously participated. A link to the persons, bio, contacts, prior documents and/or other information may also be displayed to enable the contract manager, contract delivery team member, or others with appropriate permissions easy access to such information for experts of interest..).
Although not explicitly taught by Johnson, Mintz teaches in the analogous art of decision support engine for medical equipment:
isolate and extract from the first database the plural number of years profitability, risk, overhead rates and audit managers' utilization averages …from the isolated data, produce a structured dataset comprising the utilization and profitability averages, risk and overhead rates (¶0038 In this example, discrete values are provided for each factor for the user to select. Once these discrete values are selected, the market value estimator 230 applies variable weights to each of the factors and then calculates the market value. In this example the factors include age, condition, status, maintenance, technology level, and risk. In the example of FIG. 5 the market value price is displayed in the form of a semi-circular speedometer style gauges, with a first dial indicating the current book value of the equipment and a second dial indicating the calculated market value of the equipment. Whenever the calculated market value of the equipment is to the right, i.e., higher than the book value dial, an arbitrage opportunity exists. ¶0053 FIG. 7 illustrates a snapshot of a dashboard, including a representation of inputs, according to an embodiment. As shown in the bottom of FIG. 7, various inputs may be provided to the system to be used in various calculations. The inputs may include volume of procedures performed by the equipment, list of assets and depreciation values, costs of supplies used with the equipment, overhead costs associated with the equipment, maintenance cost of the equipment, labor costs associated with the equipment, and all billings associated with the equipment (to determine revenue attributed to the equipment). The input data is assigned to the various medical equipment deployed. The dashboard enables the user to activate the various modules of the system. The various modules may include a purchase advisor which may provide purchasing recommendations based upon, e.g., the output of the market value estimator, which is shown as appraisal calculator in FIG. 7. The equipment impact analysis module can be used to determine profitability of each equipment, the impact of an upgrade or refurbishment, etc. The marketplace module can be used to place equipment for sale or to purchase equipment. ¶0056 FIG. 10 is a flow chart illustrating a method that may be performed by the system to calculate profitability of a medical equipment, according to an embodiment. At 1000 the system receives billing information that includes bills sent out by the institution to bill for various medical services. At step 1005 the system extracts the amount of each bill which is attributable to the particular medical equipment. At 1010 the system receives data of the overhead expense of the facility. At 1015 the system extracts the overhead that is attributable to the operation of the medical equipment. For example, a lease payment for the entire facility cannot be applied directly to the particular equipment, but must be extracted to include only cost associate with the equipment, e.g., a ratio of size of the room where the equipment is placed to the size of the entire building. At 1020 the system receives data reflecting payments made for purchasing supplies. At 1025 the system utilizes its knowledge database to decipher the type of supplies used by the particular equipment to extract only the cost of supplies attributable to those supplies. At 1030 the system receives labor expense data. At 1035 the system utilizes its knowledge database to determine the type of labor that is attributable to the equipment. For example, labor costs of an x-ray technician may be attributable to an x-ray machine, but surgeons' labor expense may not be. At step 1040 the system receives maintenance data and at 1045 the system utilizes its knowledge base to extract only maintenance attributable to the specific equipment. Using all the extracted data, the system at 1050 can calculate the profitability of the particular equipment.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the decision support engine for medical equipment of Mintz with the enterprise proposal management system of Johnson for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Johnson ¶0005 teaches that what is needed is maintenance and troubleshooting of overhead particularly when distinct suppliers or vendors supply the systems;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Johnson Abstract teaches enterprise management functions may re-engineer business processes and enable users to manage all aspects of an enterprise using a single unified interface, and Mintz Abstract teaches a decision support engine provides a table of actual and predicted financial results particular to a selected medical equipment; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Johnson at least the above cited paragraphs, and Mintz at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the decision support engine for medical equipment of Mintz with the enterprise proposal management system of Johnson. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Johnson teaches:
Claim 2. The system according to claim 1, wherein the linear regression formula is Pearson's correlation (¶0012 similar management functions may be provided for other enterprise areas, wherein the enterprise proposal management system may account for an interrelation between enterprise areas, documents, materials, tasks, etc. to improve enterprise-wide evaluation, execution, delivery, and analysis. By drawing upon enterprise resources in various related areas, the enterprise proposal management system may provide an enterprise with robust knowledge for managing proposals. Correlatively, data, knowledge, and other information arising during a proposal lifecycle may be fed back into related enterprise areas. Thus, according to various aspects of the invention, proposal management may no longer be one of a distinct set of program areas or business units within an enterprise, but rather, part of a cohesive strategy for managing every aspect of the enterprise ¶0044 The process may then identify techniques for differentiating the enterprise to maximize competitive positions (e.g., partnering with another vendor), and a weight may be assigned to each differentiating technique. This information may then be correlated to generate a weighted score comparing a relative strength of the enterprise as compared to the competitors, which may be useful in determining a relative likelihood of the enterprise winning the proposal (i.e., a win theme). This information may then be used to prioritize the proposal within a current workflow and appropriate resources may be identified, assigned, or otherwise allocated to the proposal).
Johnson teaches:
Claim 3. The system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine an adjustment to one of the audit managers hours by: pulling, from the first database, the audit manager's plural number of years utilization average on an individual engagement; and isolating and storing the utilization average in the second database as part of the structured dataset; anddetermining, using the structured dataset stored in the second database, an unadjusted number of PME hours by which the audit manager hours need to be reduced for the audit manager to be assigned a subject matter manager expert (SMME) role using the utilization average, a current overhead rate of the of the firm and the correlation coefficient (¶0059 Upon a proposal manager, proposal delivery team member, or others with appropriate permissions selecting contacts option 506, display 520 may be configured to display one or more of the following for a proposal: a current proposal team, one or more subject matter experts, a resume history, and/or other contact information. The current proposal team may include one or more employees, partners, or other personnel working on a proposal, including contact information, enterprise division, or other information for the respective personnel. The proposal manager, proposal delivery team member, or others with appropriate permissions may add, delete, or modify one or more team members. Subject matter experts may similarly include one or more employees, partners, or other personnel that have subject matter expertise in an area relating to the proposal. The resume history may include one or more resumes for the proposal team, subject matter experts that have been previously used on similar proposal opportunities, or others ¶0103 When the contract manager, contract delivery team member, or others with appropriate permissions select the contract writers option, information regarding individuals who participated in the writing of the contract and/or portions thereof may be displayed. Display 1220 may also include names of subject matter experts, their roles/expertise, and contract names for which they have previously participated. A link to the persons, bio, contacts, prior documents and/or other information may also be displayed to enable the contract manager, contract delivery team member, or others with appropriate permissions easy access to such information for experts of interest).
Although not explicitly taught by Johnson, Mintz teaches in the analogous art of decision support engine for medical equipment:
isolating and storing the utilization average in the second database as part of the structured dataset; anddetermining, using the structured dataset stored in the second database (¶0038 In this example, discrete values are provided for each factor for the user to select. Once these discrete values are selected, the market value estimator 230 applies variable weights to each of the factors and then calculates the market value. In this example the factors include age, condition, status, maintenance, technology level, and risk. In the example of FIG. 5 the market value price is displayed in the form of a semi-circular speedometer style gauges, with a first dial indicating the current book value of the equipment and a second dial indicating the calculated market value of the equipment. Whenever the calculated market value of the equipment is to the right, i.e., higher than the book value dial, an arbitrage opportunity exists. ¶0053 FIG. 7 illustrates a snapshot of a dashboard, including a representation of inputs, according to an embodiment. As shown in the bottom of FIG. 7, various inputs may be provided to the system to be used in various calculations. The inputs may include volume of procedures performed by the equipment, list of assets and depreciation values, costs of supplies used with the equipment, overhead costs associated with the equipment, maintenance cost of the equipment, labor costs associated with the equipment, and all billings associated with the equipment (to determine revenue attributed to the equipment). The input data is assigned to the various medical equipment deployed. The dashboard enables the user to activate the various modules of the system. The various modules may include a purchase advisor which may provide purchasing recommendations based upon, e.g., the output of the market value estimator, which is shown as appraisal calculator in FIG. 7. The equipment impact analysis module can be used to determine profitability of each equipment, the impact of an upgrade or refurbishment, etc. The marketplace module can be used to place equipment for sale or to purchase equipment. ¶0056 FIG. 10 is a flow chart illustrating a method that may be performed by the system to calculate profitability of a medical equipment, according to an embodiment. At 1000 the system receives billing information that includes bills sent out by the institution to bill for various medical services. At step 1005 the system extracts the amount of each bill which is attributable to the particular medical equipment. At 1010 the system receives data of the overhead expense of the facility. At 1015 the system extracts the overhead that is attributable to the operation of the medical equipment. For example, a lease payment for the entire facility cannot be applied directly to the particular equipment, but must be extracted to include only cost associate with the equipment, e.g., a ratio of size of the room where the equipment is placed to the size of the entire building. At 1020 the system receives data reflecting payments made for purchasing supplies. At 1025 the system utilizes its knowledge database to decipher the type of supplies used by the particular equipment to extract only the cost of supplies attributable to those supplies. At 1030 the system receives labor expense data. At 1035 the system utilizes its knowledge database to determine the type of labor that is attributable to the equipment. For example, labor costs of an x-ray technician may be attributable to an x-ray machine, but surgeons' labor expense may not be. At step 1040 the system receives maintenance data and at 1045 the system utilizes its knowledge base to extract only maintenance attributable to the specific equipment. Using all the extracted data, the system at 1050 can calculate the profitability of the particular equipment.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the decision support engine for medical equipment of Mintz with the enterprise proposal management system of Johnson for the following reasons:
(1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings, e.g. Johnson ¶0005 teaches that what is needed is maintenance and troubleshooting of overhead particularly when distinct suppliers or vendors supply the systems;
(2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success since the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, e.g. Johnson Abstract teaches enterprise management functions may re-engineer business processes and enable users to manage all aspects of an enterprise using a single unified interface, and Mintz Abstract teaches a decision support engine provides a table of actual and predicted financial results particular to a selected medical equipment; and
(3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness, e.g. Johnson at least the above cited paragraphs, and Mintz at least the inclusively cited paragraphs.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the decision support engine for medical equipment of Mintz with the enterprise proposal management system of Johnson. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143(G).
Johnson teaches:
Claim 4. The system according to claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a number of hours necessary for the audit manager to be assigned a subject matter manager expert (SMME) role by: multiplying the utilization average by the current overhead rate to determine a first result, dividing the first result by the correlation coefficient to determine a second result; and subtracting the second result from the average utilization hours to determine the number of hours for the audit manager to be assigned the SMME role (¶0059 Upon a proposal manager, proposal delivery team member, or others with appropriate permissions selecting contacts option 506, display 520 may be configured to display one or more of the following for a proposal: a current proposal team, one or more subject matter experts, a resume history, and/or other contact information. The current proposal team may include one or more employees, partners, or other personnel working on a proposal, including contact information, enterprise division, or other information for the respective personnel. The proposal manager, proposal delivery team member, or others with appropriate permissions may add, delete, or modify one or more team members. Subject matter experts may similarly include one or more employees, partners, or other personnel that have subject matter expertise in an area relating to the proposal. The resume history may include one or more resumes for the proposal team, subject matter experts that have been previously used on similar proposal opportunities, or others ¶0103 When the contract manager, contract delivery team member, or others with appropriate permissions select the cont