Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “It is evident that aforementioned claimed steps are concrete computing operations carried out by enumerated architectural modules of FIG. 1 of the present invention. The modules are the realization engine module, the design and distribution intelligence modules which comprise a KPI design engine and a distribution engine, and the intelligent data auditing module which comprises a data pooler and a data usage tracker. Clearly, the above mentioned claimed steps are not human-organizable activities, instead these are mechanism-level computing operations of specific data architecture.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. These claimed engines, as drafted, are software engines that are configured to be executed by the processor circuitry of the claims, wherein said software engines perform a number of abstract limitations of the claims. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “The Applicant submits that the claim is not limited to using a computer merely to receive, store, or output information. Rather, the claim recites a specific data-repository architecture and a particular technical workflow performed by specifically recited architectural modules, including a realization engine module, a design and distribution intelligence module having a KPI design engine and a distribution engine, and an intelligent data auditing module having a data pooler and a data usage tracker. The claimed features of the amended claim 1 explicitly teaches about monitoring the data repository via the data pooler and the data usage tracker, detecting new data and to track usage of data assets and individual elements within the data assets stored in the data repository; updating the available KPIs to include an additional KPI computable based on the new data, thereby converting previously unutilized data stored in the data repository into utilized data for calculating the additional KPI. This is a direct, measurable improvement to the operation of the data repository itself by utilizing the amount of unutilized data which is an untapped potential data stored in the data repository. Further, MPEP 2106.05(a), clearly states that an improvement to an additional element qualifies as integration into a practical application.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. These claimed engines, as drafted, are software engines that are configured to be executed by the processor circuitry of the claims, wherein said software engines perform a number of abstract limitations of the claims. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even assuming arguendo, the present claims do not recite any improvements to the additional elements of the claims. The improvement of utilizing data to generate information, as drafted, is an improvement related to the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “The Examiner's Prong 2 analysis treats the amended claim as merely applying an alleged abstract idea using generic computer components. However, amended claim 1 is now tied to a concrete technical arrangement in which the claimed modules operate on a data repository that include a data lake, data warehouse, or system of insight, and in which the data repository is monitored for new data, available KPIs are updated based on the new data, the data enthalpy metric is recalculated, the insight recommendation model is re-executed, and a knowledge graph is generated based on output from the data usage tracker.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. These claimed engines, as drafted, are software engines that are configured to be executed by the processor circuitry of the claims, wherein said software engines perform a number of abstract limitations of the claims. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Thus, the practical application is not merely "generating reports" or "extracting meaningful insights," which the Examiner characterized as an improvement to the alleged abstract idea. Rather, the practical application is the operation of a data-repository monitoring and utilization architecture that detects newly stored data, determines whether previously unavailable KPIs have become computable, updates the available KPI set, recalculates the data enthalpy metric, re-executes the recommendation model, and tracks data asset/data element usage through a knowledge graph with lineage. This is an improvement to the claimed data-processing architecture and the claimed data repository workflow, not an improvement solely to the alleged abstract idea.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The computer is merely used as a tool to monitor the database for information, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. The mere use of additional data to generate an updated recommendation, as drafted, is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Further, the amended claims recite generating a knowledge graph for tracking usage of data assets and individual elements within the data assets, based on output from the data usage tracker, which is a concrete, structured data-architecture output, not a generic display or report.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This limitation, as drafted, is part of the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. The generated knowledge graph of the claim, as drafted, but for the recitation of “by the distribution engine,” covers an abstract idea but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the distribution engine,” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being interpreted as an abstract idea. For example, with the exception of the “by the distribution engine” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass an abstract idea directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “The Applicant submits that the ordered combination of the realization engine module computing the data enthalpy metric from the data repository, the KPI design engine training the insight recommendation model on a specifically defined training dataset (data dictionary, KPI repository data, historical insight reports), the distribution engine executing the model to compute the KPI enthalpy metric for each available KPI not in use, the data pooler and data usage tracker monitoring the data repository and feeding the knowledge graph, and the realization engine module updating the available KPIs in response to new data to convert unutilized data into utilized data is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Under Berkheimer v. HP and MPEP 2106.05(d), this unconventional ordered combination amounts to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Examiner has considered Applicant’s assertion in view of Berkheimer, Applicant’s assertion is moot because Examiner has not stated the present claims recite subject matter that is “well-understood, routine, and conventional.”
Accordingly, the present claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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: “intelligent data auditing module” in claim 1.
When looking to the specification, the hardware structure associated with the “intelligent data auditing module” is being interpreted as “processing circuitry and memory” please see at least Fig. 1 and [0016-0017] of the instant specification. The corresponding algorithm of the “intelligent data auditing module” can be found in at least Fig. 2 and corresponding paragraphs [0033-0035]. This is to be the structure and algorithm required for the claim, or equivalents thereof.
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.
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 1-3, 8, 11-14, 18, 20-28 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-3, 8, 11, and 21-24 are directed to a method, claims 12-14, 18, and 25-28 are directed to a system, and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable media. Therefore, the claims are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 1, 12, and 20 are related to generating a KPI recommendation, constituting an abstract idea based on “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” related to commercial interactions including advertising or marketing sales activities or behaviors. Independent claim 1 recites limitations, similarly recited in claims 12 and 20, including “obtaining, available Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) associated with an operation process, the available KPIs representing metrics that can be calculated based on data for the operation process stored in a data repository, wherein the data repository comprising at least one of a data lake, a data warehouse, and a system of insight (SOI); identifying, in-use KPIs comprising a subset of the available KPIs, the in-use KPIs being outputted as data insights; calculating, a data enthalpy metric for the operation process based on a number of the available KPIs and a number of the in-use KPIs, the data enthalpy metric indicating a relative amount of unutilized data for calculating a KPI and representing untapped potential of data in the data repository; obtaining, an insight recommendation model to predict a significance of an available KPI not in use, executing, the insight recommendation model to generate a KPI recommendation for the operation process based on the data enthalpy metric, wherein executing the insight recommendation model comprises: predicting, with the insight recommendation model, a KPI significance metric for each of the available KPIs not in use of a plurality of operation process, the KPI significance metric indicating a significance weight of a first KPI in comparison with other KPIs; for each of the available KPIs not in use, calculating a KPI enthalpy metric based on the KPI significance metric of the first KPI and a data enthalpy metric of an operation process associated with the first KPI, wherein calculating the KPI enthalpy metric comprises: identifying available KPIs not in use associated with a same operation process as the KPI; and adding KPI significance metrics of the available KPIs not in use to obtain a subtotal KPI significance metric; and calculating the KPI enthalpy metric for the KPI based on the subtotal KPI significance metric, the KPI significance metric of the KPI, and the data enthalpy metric of the same operation process as the KPI; and determining recommended KPIs based on the KPI enthalpy metrics, by selecting the KPI with KPI enthalpy metrics that exceed a predetermined metric threshold; updating, in response to detecting the new data, the available KPIs to include an additional KPI computable based on the new data; recalculating the data enthalpy metric based on the updated number of the available KPIs; re-executing, the insight recommendation model to generate an updated KPI recommendation; and outputting, the KPI recommendation and generating, to generate a knowledge graph for tracking usage of data assets and individual elements within the data assets based on output from the data usage tracker.” These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the language of “with a processing circuitry,” covers an abstract idea but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “with a processing circuitry,” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being interpreted as an abstract idea. For example, with the exception of the “with a processing circuitry” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass an abstract idea directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
Dependent claims 2-3, 8, 13-14, 18, 21, 24-25, and 28 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 11, 22-23, and 26-27 will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 12, and 20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is directed to a method performed “with a processor circuitry,” as well as “with the processor circuitry executing the realization engine module,” and “with the processor circuitry, via a distribution engine of the design and distribution intelligence module.” Claim 12 is directed to a system comprising “a memory having stored thereon executable instructions; a processor circuitry in communication with the memory, the processor circuitry when executing the instructions via a realization engine module configured to.” Claim 20 is directed to a product comprising “non-transitory machine-readable media; and instructions stored on the machine-readable media, the instructions configured to, when executed, cause a processor circuitry to.” Claim 1 recites limitations, similarly recited in claims 12 and 20, including “obtaining, with a processor circuitry executing a realization engine module, available Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) associated with an operation process from a KPI repository,” “the in-use KPIs being outputted as data insights via a user interface,” “monitoring, by a data pooler and a data usage tracker of an intelligent data auditing module, the data repository to detect new data stored in the data repository and to track usage of data assets and individual elements within the data assets stored in the data repository,” and “outputting, with the processor circuitry via the distribution engine, the KPI recommendation via the user interface.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additionally, claim 1 recites limitations, similarly recited in claims 12 and 20, including “obtaining, with the processor circuitry, an insight recommendation model trained to predict a significance of an available KPI not in use, wherein the insight recommendation model is a pretrained machine learning model, wherein the pretrained machine learning model is trained, by a KPI design engine of a design and distribution intelligence module, based on a training dataset, wherein the training dataset includes test data from a data dictionary for the data repository, KPI data in the KPI repository and historical data insight reports for a plurality of operation processes.” These limitations, as drafted, provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-3, 8, 13-14, 18, 21, 24-25, and 28 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claim 11 recites the additional element of “where the method further comprises: receiving a validation result for the KPI recommendation via the user interface; in response to the validation result indicating the KPI recommendation being rejected, triggering to train the insight recommendation model with new training dataset and execute the trained insight recommendation model to generate the updated KPI recommendation.” Dependent claim 23 recites the additional element of “wherein the trained insight recommendation model is stored in one or more cloud storage buckets, and a lifecycle of the trained insight recommendation model is managed using a model registry.” Dependent claim 27 recites the additional element of “wherein the trained insight recommendation model is stored in one or more cloud storage buckets, and a lifecycle of the trained insight recommendation model is managed using a model registry.” These limitations reciting training a model, as drafted, provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 22 recites the additional element of “wherein outputting the KPI recommendation via the user interface further comprises: receiving, via the user interface, a validation results corresponding to the KPI recommendation; and configuring the distribution engine, based on the validation results, to automatically update the knowledge graph and generate customized reports or dashboards incorporating the approved recommended KPIs as data insights associated with the operation process..” Dependent claim 26 recites the additional element of “wherein outputting the KPI recommendation via the user interface further comprises: receiving, via the user interface, a validation results corresponding to the KPI recommendation; and configuring the distribution engine, based on the validation results, to automatically update the knowledge graph and generate customized reports or dashboards incorporating the approved recommended KPIs as data insights associated with the operation process.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 12, and 20 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 is directed to a method performed “with a processor circuitry,” as well as “with the processor circuitry executing the realization engine module,” and “with the processor circuitry, via a distribution engine of the design and distribution intelligence module.” Claim 12 is directed to a system comprising “a memory having stored thereon executable instructions; a processor circuitry in communication with the memory, the processor circuitry when executing the instructions via a realization engine module configured to.” Claim 20 is directed to a product comprising “non-transitory machine-readable media; and instructions stored on the machine-readable media, the instructions configured to, when executed, cause a processor circuitry to.” Claim 1 recites limitations, similarly recited in claims 12 and 20, including “obtaining, with a processor circuitry executing a realization engine module, available Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) associated with an operation process from a KPI repository,” “the in-use KPIs being outputted as data insights via a user interface,” “monitoring, by a data pooler and a data usage tracker of an intelligent data auditing module, the data repository to detect new data stored in the data repository and to track usage of data assets and individual elements within the data assets stored in the data repository,” and “outputting, with the processor circuitry via the distribution engine, the KPI recommendation via the user interface.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additionally, claim 1 recites limitations, similarly recited in claims 12 and 20, including “obtaining, with the processor circuitry, an insight recommendation model trained to predict a significance of an available KPI not in use, wherein the insight recommendation model is a pretrained machine learning model, wherein the pretrained machine learning model is trained, by a KPI design engine of a design and distribution intelligence module, based on a training dataset, wherein the training dataset includes test data from a data dictionary for the data repository, KPI data in the KPI repository and historical data insight reports for a plurality of operation processes.” These limitations, as drafted, provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-3, 8, 13-14, 18, 21, 24-25, and 28 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 11 recites the additional element of “where the method further comprises: receiving a validation result for the KPI recommendation via the user interface; in response to the validation result indicating the KPI recommendation being rejected, triggering to train the insight recommendation model with new training dataset and execute the trained insight recommendation model to generate the updated KPI recommendation.” Dependent claim 23 recites the additional element of “wherein the trained insight recommendation model is stored in one or more cloud storage buckets, and a lifecycle of the trained insight recommendation model is managed using a model registry.” Dependent claim 27 recites the additional element of “wherein the trained insight recommendation model is stored in one or more cloud storage buckets, and a lifecycle of the trained insight recommendation model is managed using a model registry.” These limitations reciting training a model, as drafted, provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 22 recites the additional element of “wherein outputting the KPI recommendation via the user interface further comprises: receiving, via the user interface, a validation results corresponding to the KPI recommendation; and configuring the distribution engine, based on the validation results, to automatically update the knowledge graph and generate customized reports or dashboards incorporating the approved recommended KPIs as data insights associated with the operation process..” Dependent claim 26 recites the additional element of “wherein outputting the KPI recommendation via the user interface further comprises: receiving, via the user interface, a validation results corresponding to the KPI recommendation; and configuring the distribution engine, based on the validation results, to automatically update the knowledge graph and generate customized reports or dashboards incorporating the approved recommended KPIs as data insights associated with the operation process.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-3, 8, 11-14, 18, 20-28 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Independent claims 1, 12, and 20 are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the available field of prior art. The claims overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art references can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101, as set forth above.
With respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 20, the present claims overcome the prior art rejection(s). The prior art, including the combination of Singh in view of Bader in view of Warkentin in view of Bhattacharya, when taken alone or in combination, does not anticipate, teach, or suggest the combination of limitations of “wherein calculating the KPI enthalpy metric comprises: identifying available KPIs not in use associated with a same operation process as the KPI; and adding KPI significance metrics of the available KPIs not in use to obtain a subtotal KPI significance metric; and calculating the KPI enthalpy metric for the KPI based on the subtotal KPI significance metric, the KPI significance metric of the KPI, and the data enthalpy metric of the same operation process as the KPI; and determining recommended KPIs based on the KPI enthalpy metrics, by selecting the KPI with KPI enthalpy metrics that exceed a predetermined metric threshold.” Examiner notes that Bhattacharya et al. (US 20230245022 A1) discloses generating scores with KPIs with other KPIs being unavailable and weighted at zero. Sheen et al. (US 20170272319 A1) discloses a prediction impact score associated with a KPI being below a threshold and being considered of less importance when predicting the KQI, and thus can be excluded from the set of KPIs used to adjust parameters. However, neither Bhattacharya nor Sheen can be incorporated into the prior art combination of the record above in order to sufficiently teach or disclose the combination of claim limitations including “wherein calculating the KPI enthalpy metric comprises: identifying available KPIs not in use associated with a same operation process as the KPI; and adding KPI significance metrics of the available KPIs not in use to obtain a subtotal KPI significance metric; and calculating the KPI enthalpy metric for the KPI based on the subtotal KPI significance metric, the KPI significance metric of the KPI, and the data enthalpy metric of the same operation process as the KPI; and determining recommended KPIs based on the KPI enthalpy metrics, by selecting the KPI with KPI enthalpy metrics that exceed a predetermined metric threshold.” Therefore, the independent claims overcome the prior art of the record such that none of the cited references can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ehrman et al. (20140358645) discloses utilizing a different KPI when a given KPI is unavailable due to an impact, wherein the complimentary KPI may be related in the case of noncompliance, which is related to at least the dependent claim 2 limitation of “identifying unavailable KPIs from the set of KPIs, the unavailable KPIs representing KPIs that cannot be calculated due to required data for the calculation being absent from the data repository”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara G Brown whose telephone number is (469)295-9145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am- 5:00 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SARA GRACE BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
