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 . 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filled on 02/22/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1,11 are independent and have been amended by Applicant’s 02/22/2026 amendment.
Claims 8,18 were previously canceled by Applicant.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, 20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments / Arguments
Applicant’s 02/22/2026 amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection in this action.
Response Applicant’s rebuttal arguments on prior 35 USC 112(b) rejection
35 USC 112 (b) rejection of Claims 1-7,9-17,19 and 20 in the previous office action is withdrawn in view of Applicant amending independent Claims 1,11 as suggested by Examiner.
Response Applicant’s rebuttal arguments on 35 USC 101 rejection
Remarks 02/22/2026 p.2 ¶5 cites the current Original Specification ¶ [0050] to argue that the amended claims dynamically or otherwise iteratively improve the deployment of automated bots, such identifying circumstances in which it is no longer appropriate to use a bot and instead perform a process manually. Similarly, the claimed embodiments are argued to dynamically identify situations in which it may have initially been inappropriate to automate a process at first, but it then becomes appropriate implement at least a second automation bot to perform the manual process. For example, it is argued that the present application discloses that circumstances may change such that it may eventually be appropriate to automate a procedure (e.g. the number of employees performing [a] manual process increases to some prohibitive level)
Remarks 02/22/2026 p.2 ¶6 argues that the current claims recite specific features and steps, including the type(s) of automation metrics to make an informed decision on the deployment of bots based on the efficacy of the bots and automated processes and thus improve computer functionality by allocating resources more effectively, and are also not so abstract and sweeping so as to preclude all methods of implementing automated tools.
Examiner fully considered the 101 arguments but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive reincorporating all 101 findings and rationales at prior Non-Final Act 11/21/2025.
Here, the claims still recite, describe or set forth the data gathering, decision making associated with “implementing an automated process” which is justified or validated based on an automation metric culminating with “updating the at least one automation bot so that the automated process is performed manually based on the efficacy of the at least one automation”.
These are consistent with the Applicant’s observation at Remarks 02/22/2026 p.2 ¶5 to identify situations initially inappropriate to automate a process at first, but it then becomes appropriate implement at least a second automation bot to perform the manual process, as well as Applicant’s observation at Remarks 02/22/2026 p.2 ¶6 to make an informed decision on the deployment of bots based on the efficacy of the bots and automated processes. These represent mere best business practices to override, fallback, switch, or revert an intended automatic decision back to manual operation when a metric shows that the automation process is not effective or worth it, as read in light of Original Specification ¶ [0097], or equally abstract best business practices when the aforementioned circumstances may change such that it may eventually be appropriate to automate a procedure when the number of employees performing manual process increases to some prohibitive level as read in light of Original Specification ¶ [0050] and recognized by the Applicant at Remarks 02/22/2026 p.2 ¶5.
It would then follow, that here, a purported and latent improvement ensuing from the automation or non-automation decision would still be the result of the abstract decision making itself, rather than a clear, deliberate and sufficient improvement in actual technology. This finding is important because MPEP 2106.05(a) II stresses that improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. fundamental economic concept) is not improvement in technology. Similarly, MPEP 2106.04 I cites Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979: to state that even a “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry”. It then follows that here any purported groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant improvement in the abstract managing, scheduling, or configuring of the “one or more contact centers” would also not satisfy the 101 inquiry. The “Myriad” rationale was further corroborated in “SAP Am, Inc v InvestPic” cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.C(i). Digging deeper, into the rationale, it was previously found in SAP that “even if one assumes that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant those features are not enough for eligibility because their innovation is innovation in ineligible subject matter. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting”.
Here, as in “SAP” supra, even if one were to submit in the arguendo, that by deciding of whether or not it is appropriate to automate some benefit would be obtained, such benefit would still represent latent results ensuing from the alleged improvement in the efficiency of the abstract idea itself, not an improvement in either actual technology or the computer itself. This is the more relevant as MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii)1 articulated that an increased in speed in a process that comes from the capabilities of the computer, represents mere invocation of machinery that merely applies the abstract exception, which does not render the claims eligible. In a similar vein MPEP 2106.05(a) I2 states that accelerating a process such as analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes from the capabilities of the computer, does not represent an improvement in computer-functionality. It then follows that here, the decision making benefit of whether or not to automate, would also not render the current claims patent eligible.
To be also clear, automation metric upon which the decision of whether or not to automate is still read as a validation metric in light of the Original Specification ¶ [0043, namely as return on investment (ROI) or total cost of ownership (TCO) upon which to decide whether or not the automation is effective or worth it or not, in the latter case, reversing the automation decision back to manual. These analytical and decision-making concepts remain integral to the abstract computer-aided judgment of MPEP 2106.04(a) ¶6, 3) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C. They can be equally argued as fundamental practices as tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A ¶2, with the term fundamental not used in the sense of necessarily being old or well-known but rather as a building block of modern economy. Here, such decision making to revert to manual, as tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A ¶2 supra, remains an example of such an abstract, fundamental concept representing a building block of modem economy, no matter if the intention is for “implementing at least a second automation bot to perform the manual process”, is an old or well-known process or not. In a similar vein, MPEP 2106.04(a) ¶6, 3) and MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) III C #2 finds that recitation of a computer environment upon which to perform an abstract cognitive process or evaluation and judgment, as previously cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2, does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract idea. It then follows that here, an environment characterized by automation upon which a judgement to revert to manual implementation is decided, as set forth at the last two limitations of Claims 1,11, would similarly not preclude said claims from reciting the abstract exception. Examiner also reasons, in the arguendo, that even if the decision to override, fallback, switch, or revert to manual operation is not already abstract right from the onset, it would still provide nothing more than an idea of a solution or outcome [here reversal of intended automation to manual or decision to automate], which, even when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), (3) would still not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong 2) or provide significantly more (Step 2B) by mere invocation of machinery [MPEP 2105.05(f)(2)] and/or generality of the application of the judicial exception [MPEP 2106.05(f)(3)].
Additionally or alternatively, the decision to override, fallback, switch, or revert to manual operation when the automation metric shows the automation process is not valid, worth it, or effective based on a metric read in light of Original Specification as associated with investment or cost metrics, to subsequently allow to update or notify about such reversal, or to automate when the conditions change, can also be viewed as an attempt of narrowing the decision-based abstract process to a field of use or technological environment, represented here by automation or lack thereof, which as tested per MPEP 2106.05(h), would once again not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong 2) or provide significantly more (Step 2B), the latter further corroborated by:
- US 20250339968 A1 ¶ [0004] “In the conventional technology, after a device fault occurs to a transfer robot, a person on site switches the transfer robot into a manual mode, drags the transfer robot to an idle area for maintenance, and restores the system task after the transfer robot is repaired. If an abnormal transfer robot is carrying a turnover box, a task of the turnover box may be delayed, and cannot be processed in time. The task can only be restored to normal status after maintenance of the transfer robot is completed, and then this previous task is continued” , then also corroborated by its preponderance a myriad of other publications such as:
- US 7194757 B1 column 5 lines 60-62: It is also an advantage of the present system and method to provide a fall-back manual system of delivery of content when all else fails or the intended recipient is not a part of the system. The system and method also includes a fall-back manual delivery facility when automated delivery cannot be accomplished through the facilities shown in Fig.1.
- US 20230298754 A1 ¶ [0061] For those who have CGM and pump data in real-time we see a very sophisticated hybrid: Not only can Minerva post your average ISF and effective meal dosing for an averaged period, but it also can warn you of an impending low. But Minerva can do more than advise; it can close the loop. Minerva could, for example, give a correction dose every 2 hours based on all the recent ISF values for that time of day, the starting CGM and time after the meal. It could decrease the dose appropriately the second time around for stacking. The well-rested parent who has relied on Minerva could go back to manual or continue with automatic in the morning.
- US 20230412611 A1 ¶ [0198] last sentence: the user has the option to accept the auto fill (auto resolving), or reject the auto fill, and revert back to manual data model mapping.
- US 20150178712 A1 mid-¶ [0077] If unable to find the check automatically, the application falls back on asking the diner to manually enter the table number at which he or she is seated and the service provider computer system 130 then may retrieve check data from the POS computer 112 using a query that includes the table number.
- US 20130304513 A1 ¶ [0057] last sentence: The operator may also disable the autonomous drive mode selection system 235, reverting back to a local manually controlled mode.
- US 20170113687 A1 ¶ [0081] last sentence: For example, if the operational mode device in FIG. 5 switches control of the SDV 202 from the manual mode to the autonomous mode, and then switches control of the SDV 202 back to the manual mode a few seconds later, the driver and/or SDV will likely become confused and/or ineffective.
- US 20160026180 A1 ¶ [0012] The driver will generally be able to switch between these two modes at will, but the vehicle 10 may automatically transfer back to “manual” under certain conditions. Thus, as mentioned briefly above, the conditions under which an automated vehicle is likely to switch between automated and manual modes is referred to as its “transfer-of-control” policy. ¶ [0003] 2nd sentence: Control will typically be transferred to the driver, for example, when the driving task it too difficult to accomplish in an automated mode or when the confidence of the automatic system in its own performance is lower than some threshold value
- US 20180059659 A1 ¶ [0094] As described above, according to the third embodiment of the present invention, in a case where the terrain or building configuration at the landing site is complex, the landing site is difficult to see from the air, or the signal range of the access point 2 is short and the landing site cannot be found, then the unmanned aerial vehicle switches from automatic landing mode to manual operation by the operator 708. Near the landing site, image data captured by the camera is transmitted through a wireless LAN, which can transmit large volumes of data, enabling clear imagery to be seen by the operator during remote operation.
- US 20220012496 A1 ¶ [0429] The security system according to Supplementary Note 2, in which, when the unmanned aerial vehicle loses sight of the target from the image in the tracking mode, the unmanned aerial vehicle transmits a notification indicating that the sight of the target is lost to the terminal, and switches to the manual mode.
- US 20250121915 A1 ¶ [0066] In case the target person arrives at a place where it is not possible to see the guidance robot 20 (for example, the next room or the like) although the position information is very close, the control of the guidance robot 20 may be configured to be switched from automatic control by the control unit 26 to manual operation by the observer on land when it is not possible to determine that the guidance robot 20 has reached the position of the target person within a predetermined time using methods (2) to (6) described below even though the distance between the guidance robot 20 and the mobile terminal 30 is within the predetermined range
- US 20140039517 A1 ¶ [0448] Accordingly, force overrider 375 interprets this second evaluation of step 834 testing true as an indication that manipulator is in an undesirable state. Manipulator controller 124 therefore branches to steps 864 and 866 to transition the manipulator back to the manual mode and deactivate the instrument.
Similarly at US 20140039681 A1
- US 20100144383 A1 ¶ [0607] A system of networked devices and subsystems that accommodates same-site redundancy of gateway devices, with automatic switch-over should a primary fail, and the option of automatic or manual switch-back.
As per the preceding limitation of “capturing at least one automation metric based on implementations of the automated process using the at least one automation bot, the at least one automation metric including at least one of a number of automation bots implemented by the first entity, a number of processes automated by the first entity, or a number of screens navigated through automated bots”, as recited each of independent Claims 1,11, such limitation can also be argued as example of a computer environment upon which to perform a computer aided mental process, which per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III #2, does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract idea (Step 2A prong one). Even, when more granularly tested as part of additional computer-based elements (Step 2A prong 2,Step 2B), such capturing automation metric limitation remains an example of monitoring audit log data executed on computer3, which per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii) denotes mere invocation of computers or machinery as tools to perform a process that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong 2) or provide significantly more (Step 2B).
As per the subsequent limitation of “implementing at least a second automation bot to perform the manual process” given the given the high level of generality of the implementing of the “at least a second automation bot” in “implementing to perform the manual process”, such “automation bot” can be viewed as a tool which according to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) also does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical appclaition or provide significantly more.
In conclusion, the amended and argued limitations in independent Claims 1,11, still do not preclude said claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract idea, with the decision-making process for the level of automation or lack thereof or reversal of automation to manual, not integrating the abstract exception into a practical application or providing significantly more even when more granularly tested at the respective Step 2A prong two and step 2B.
Thus, the claims are still believed to be patent ineligible.
Response Applicant’s rebuttal arguments on prior art rejection
Remarks 02/22/2026 p.3 ¶2-¶3 argues the prior art of Driesen Volker US 20100332585 A1 merely considers whether the automation module is executed successfully, rather than to “indicates an efficacy of the at least one automation bot” as amended at independent Claims 1,11.
Examiner fully considered the argument but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive.
First, Examiner notes that the argued limitation is phrased as a “wherein” limitation:
* “wherein the at least one automation metric indicates an efficacy of the at least one automation bot”. Examiner points to MPEP 2111.04 I and notes that Examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: …(B) "wherein" clauses”…; Here, the “indicates” verb, in the above “wherein” limitation, is not part of the active gerund steps of independent method Claim 1, nor is it part of the configuration of the elements of system independent Claim 11. Thus, the Examiner asserts that “wherein the at least one automation metric indicates an efficacy of the at least one automation bot” can be argued to have limited to no patentable weight, when tested per MPEP 2111.04 I.
II. Second, even if one would consider, in the arguendo, that said wherein limitation, of
* wherein the at least one automation metric indicates an efficacy of the at least one automation bot would have patentable weight, it can still be argued that, given the breadth of such limitation, Driesen Volker US 20100332585 A1 still teaches such limitation. This is because the current Original Specification while providing some examples at its ¶ [0075], [0096], as raised by Remarks 02/22/2026 p.3 ¶2, does not provide an explicit definition for what the term “efficacy” means. In absence of such explicit definition, the Examiner applies the broadest reasonable interpretation test, per MPEP 2111, and broadly interprets the term “efficacy” as any measure to produce a desired or intended result, including but not limited to successful execution, which is taught by Driesen as admitted Applicant at Remarks 02/22/2026 p.3 ¶2, 1st sentence,.
III. Third, and equally important, Examiner also submits in the arguendo, that even if one would have adopted the Applicant’s much narrower interpretation of the term “efficacy” such as based on costs associated with implementing the automated process(es) or savings resultant from implementing the automated process(es), as raised by Remarks 02/22/2026 p.3 ¶3 by citation of Original Specification ¶ [0049], Driesen Volker US 20100332585 A1 would still teach such much narrower cost-based or saving-based interpretation for the term “efficacy” as follows:
Driesen ¶ [0028] 2nd-4th sentences: Providing organization and automation of manual tasks increase efficiency in managing systems, procedures, and tasks. The techniques and components described herein may be used to reduce the operation costs for offerings based on Software as a Service (SaaS). Providing an SaaS offering can imply providing a large number of similar or even identical services to a very large group of users or customers. When offering SaaS, the provider will want to minimize costs to maximize profit.
Driesen ¶ [0029] 2nd sentence: architecture 100 reduce the costs by automating a number of manual actions and managing any remaining manual actions in an efficient manner. Driesen ¶ [0030] 1st-3rd sentences: The automation by design targets the design phase of a tool or product. Here, the operation cost and level of automated operation are design criteria for the product… this approach is very efficient.
Driesen ¶ [0038] 3rd sentence: In general infrastructure 200 can be used to increase efficiency of service tasks and processes by implementing rules and handling architecture in a lifecycle management system.
In conclusion, the Examiner’s rebuttal of the Applicant’s prior art argument is 3-prong:
I. First, Examiner argues the lack of patentable weight for the contested wherein limitation.
II. Second, the Examiner submits that Driesen’s successful execution meets the term “efficacy” as claimed, based on broadest reasonable interpretation test of MPEP 2111.
III. Third, and equally valid, the Examiner submits, in arguendo, that Driesen teaches even Applicant’s much narrower interpretation of the term “efficacy” as being based on cost savings.
Based on any individual or combination of the 3 prong rebuttals above, the Examiner finds the Applicant’s prior art argument unpersuasive.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,11 are independent and have each been amended to recite, among others:
- “updating the at least one automation bot so that the automated process is performed manually based on the at least one automation metric based on the efficacy of the at least one automation bot”
- “implementing at least a second automation bot to perform the manual process”
Original Specification only provides support of whether a process should be automated or performed manually. At most, the Original Specification ¶ [0050] as cited by Remarks 02/22/2026 p.2 ¶5 recognizes: “In some circumstances it may not be appropriate to automate a procedure. However, circumstances may change such that it may eventually be appropriate to automate a procedure (e.g., the number of employees performing manual process increases to some prohibitive level)”. Yet, the Original Specification ¶ [0050] falls short to provide clearer, deliberate and sufficient support for two bots, the first automation bot updat[ed] so that the automated process is performed manually based on the at least one automation metric based on the efficacy of the at least one automation bot, and the “second automation” “implement[ed] to perform the manual process” [bolded emphasis added]. Also, given the adverbial phrase “at least”, as in “implementing at least a second automation bot to perform the manual process”, the examiner notes that at no point does the current Original Specification provide clear, deliberate and sufficient support for the “second automation bot” and other bot(s), being implemented together “to perform the manual process” subsequent to “updating the at least one automation bot so that the automated process is performed manually based on the efficacy of the at least one automation bot”. Thus, the Original Specification does not appear to provide clear, deliberate and sufficient disclosure to demonstrate that the Applicant had possession for both manual and then also subsequent automatic implementation of the same process as reflected by the language: “so that the automated process is performed manually” and then for “implementing at least a second automation bot to perform the manual process”.
Claims 2-7, 9,10 are rejected based on rejected parent independent Claim 1,
Claims 12-17,19,29 are rejected based on rejected parent independent Claim 11.
Applicant is reminded that: “One shows that one is in possession of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious” “Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 41 USPQ2d 1961, No. 96-1168, 107 F3d 1565.
Claims 1,11 are recommended to be amended to have clear, deliberate and sufficient support in the Original Disclosure. Clarification and/or correction is/are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7,9-17,19 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1,11 are independent have each been amended to recites:
- “determining”… (Claim 1) / “provide” (Claim 11) “a first automation decision for the first entity to implement an automated process based on the quantification metric associated with the first entity and the qualification metric associated with the first entity”; (Claims 1,11)
- […]
- “providing” (Claim 1) / “provide” (Claim 11) “at least one automation bot for the first entity to implement the automated process based on the automation decision”; (Claims 1,11)
Claims 1,11 are rendered vague and indefinite since it is unclear if “the automation decision” as subsequently recited at providing/provide limitation relates back to “a first manual decision” as antecedently recited at determining limitation (Claim 1) / initial provide limitation (Claim 11).
Claims 1,11 are recommended to be amended to recite, among others, and as example:
- “providing” (Claim 1) / “provide” (Claim 11) “at least one automation bot for the first entity to implement the automated process based on the” first “automation decision”; (Claims 1,11)
Claims 2-7, 9,10 are rejected based on rejected parent independent Claim 1,
Claims 12-17,19,29 are rejected based on rejected parent independent Claim 11.
Claims 2,12 are dependent and similarly recite, among others “wherein the automation decision is further based on the data regarding the second entity”, rendering each of said dependent Claims 2,12 vague and indefinite because it is unclear if “the automation decision” as subsequently recited in said dependent Claims 2,12 relates back to “a first automation decision” antecedently as recited at parent independent Claims 1,11.
Claims 2,12 are recommended to be amended to each recite, among others, and as example only “wherein the” first “automation decision is further based on the data regarding the second entity”.
Clarification and/or corrections are required.
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 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 20 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, here abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) still recites, describe or set forth computer-aided mental processes as tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C. Specifically, as summarized in the preamble of each of independent Claims 1,11, the character as a whole of the claims is directed to “implementing an automated process”, albeit focused on data gathering and decision making, associated with implementing an automated process, rather than actual technological details of how the automation is performed from a technological point of view. The Title of the Original Specification and Background of Invention at ¶ [0003]-[0005],[0042] as well as ¶ [0033] and Fig. 10 corroborate the invention being directed to automation aid or tool. Yet, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #3 is clear that using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process is considered to recite a mental process. Here the “interface” and the “network” “connected” “processor” of independent Claims 1,11, can be argued to represent such tools or computer aids of processes that would otherwise be analogously performed through mental cognitive functions. For example, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2 states that …“"mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments…” Here, at independent Claims 1,11, the “interface”, performs, as a tool, the function of data retrieval that could have been performed on a piece of paper from visual and/or auditory observation using one’s eyes and/or ears, or through equivalent computer aids. Also, at independent Claims 1,11, the “processor executing instructions stored on memory”, merely performs a decision-making function that could have been performed by one of ordinary skills by equivalent computer aids or even by verbal or written judgment followed by a validation of such judgment. Specifically, the evaluation and judgment are set forth as “determining” “first automation decision for the first entity to implement an automated process based on the quantification metric associated with the first entity and the qualification metric associated with the first entity” and “determining” “a first manual decision for the first entity to implement a manual process based on the quantification metric associated with the first entity and the qualification metric associated with the first entity” (independent Claims 1,11) while the subsequent validation, or judgment about the judgement, is set forth here as an equally abstract best business practice to override, fallback, switch, or revert to manual operation when the validation metric if the automation process is not effective or worth it, as read in light of Original Specification ¶ [0097], of proceed with the automation if said conditions change as read in light of Original Specification ¶ [0050] 3rd sentence. The validation metrics upon which the decision making is being made, are read in light of the current Original Specification ¶ [0043] as associated with return on investment (ROI) or total cost of ownership (TCO) upon which to decide the automation or its reversal to manual (independent claims 1,11). Next, dependent Claims 10,20 further clarify that “updating the automation decision” refers to “modifying the automated process” (i.e. revert to manual) “based on the captured automation”. These can still be argued as elements integral to the abstract computer aided judgment of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) ¶6, 3) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C and/or4 fundamental practices or principles of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), with the term fundamental used in the sense of necessarily being old or well-known but rather as building block of modern economy (independent Claims 1,11). Also per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II ¶6, 4th sentence: sub-groupings of the Certain Methods of Organizing human activities encompass both activity of a single person and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. It then follows that here analogous recitations at dependent Claims 2,12 of a “a second entity” associated with the “quantification” and “qualification” metrics, such that “the second entity implements an automated process” and “wherein the automation decision is further based on the data regarding the second entity” would similarly not preclude said claims from reciting ,describing or setting forth the abstract sub-groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities.
Also here, aside from a mere recitation of “providing at least one automation bot for the first entity to implement the automated process based on the automation decision” and “capturing at least one automation metric based on implementations of the automated process using the at least one automation bot, the at least one automation metric including at least one of a number of automation bots implemented by the first entity, a number of processes automated by the first entity, or a number of screens navigated through automated bots, wherein the at least one automation metric indicates an efficacy of the at least one automation bot”; (independent Claims 1,11), the claims themselves do not provide any technological details of an actual automation, from a technological point of view (independent Claims 1,11). On the contrary, they refer to an since when “the automated process is performed manually” (independent Claims 1,11) and then a general recitation of “implementing at least a second automation bot to perform the manual process” (independent Claims 1,11) without any indication of what said “implementing” entails, other than an aid of a computer or automaton. Similarly, dependent claims 6,7,6,17 claims do not even recite what said automated process entails, aside from an equally abstract narrowing of the abstract idea to: “wherein the at least one quantification metric associated with the entity includes a savings-based metric associated with gain in productivity resultant from the automated process, manual work time saved resultant from the automated process, savings obtained from error reduction resultant from the automated process, or entity employee cost savings resultant from the automated process” (dependent Claims 6,16) and “wherein the at least one quantification metric associated with the first entity includes a cost-based metric” (dependent Claims 7,17). These provided results are certain results of the prior collection or analysis. This finding is important since, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III 5th bullet point, the collecting of information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, [remain] examples of mental processes. These elements of claims 6,7, 16,17 also appear to show that the processes identified above also relate fundamental economic practices or principles of the equally subtract certain methods of organizing human activities.
As per “generating a performance report of each of the at least one bot indicating a performance level of each of the at least one bot” at dependent Claims 9,19, the Examiner applies the same considerations for the “implementing” verbiage at independent Claims 1,11, and finds that such bot(s), are recited at such high level of generality, that can be viewed as a mere computer environment upon which the abstract mental processes is/are being performed. Yet, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #2 performing a mental process in such a computer environment is considered to recite a mental process. A similar rationale applies to “performing anonymization procedure on the received at least one quantification metric and the at least one qualification metric” (dependent Claims 5, 15), since according to MPEP 2106.04 II A 2 "adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"5. Here dependent Claims 5,15, generally recite “performing anonymization procedure” in a manner not meaningfully different than the encoding of MPEP 2106.04 II A 2. As per recitation of “providing at least one automation bot for the first entity to implement the automated process based on the automation decision”, at independent Claims 1,11, the Examiner again submits that given its high level of generality, it could be argued as an example of a computer environment for performing a decision making process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #2], and/or using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #3], none of which would preclude claims 1,11 from reciting, describing or setting forth abstract exception. In an abundance of caution the Examiner will more granularly test such automation and computerization at the subsequent tests below. For now, it is clear that, given the preponderance of legal evidence above, the character as a whole of the claims is undeniably abstract. Step 2A prong one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because per Step 2A prong two, the individual or combination of the additional, computer-based elements are/is found to merely apply the above abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and/or narrow it to a field of use or technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(h)]. Specifically, here, the level of computerization and automation, even when tested beyond mere computer aids, and as additional computer-based elements, would not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. For example, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states that use of computer components to perform economic tasks, and tasks to receive, store [here referencing database] and transmit [data6 here “provide” decision] represent mere invocation of computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform a process which does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Here, the “interface” and “memory” instruct[ed] “processor” of Claims 1,11,13,15,19,20, and possibly the bot(s) of dependent Claims 1,9,11,19 were already found above as computer aids to perform the abstract idea. Even, if such computer elements would now be tested as additional elements, per MPEP 2106.05(f),(h), they would still represent computer components of general purpose applying a business method or its underlining mathematical algorithm [MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (i)7], or tailor information and provide it to the user on such generic computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) v8]. They could be also argued as representative of a technological environment upon which the combination of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, is narrowed upon [MPEP 2106.05(h) vi9] and/or a generality of the application of the judicial exception [MPEP 2106.05(f)(3)], none of which integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. These findings are especially relevant to recitation of “wherein the interface is a RESTful application programming interface in operable communication with the first entity” (dependent Claims 4,14), and recitation of “generating a performance report of the bots indicating a performance level of each of the bots” (dependent Claims 9,19). Simply put, given their high level of generality, the above “RESTful application programming interface” and the bot(s), could be argued to constitute technological environments upon which the abstract idea is merely narrowed. In a similar vein, the broad recitation of “providing at least one automation bot for the first entity to implement the automated process based on the automation decision” and “implementing at least a second automation bot to perform the manual process” at Claims 1,11 would correspond to applying the abstract exception and/or a generality of application of the judicial exception, which, per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and/or MPEP 2106.05(f)(3) respectively, would also not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Similarly, “capturing at least one automation metric based on implementations of the automated process using the at least one automation bot, the at least one automation metric including at least one of the number of automation bots implemented by the first entity, the number of processes automated by the first entity, or the number of screens navigated through automated bots” as amended at each of independent Claims 1,11 is tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii) and found to be an example of monitoring audit log data executed on a computer10, which according to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) represents mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As per recitations of “transforming the metrics associated with the first entity into a standardized third format”, “transforming the metrics associated with the second entity into the standardized third format”, “updating the database with the transformed metrics and transmitting a message to at least the first entity regarding the updated database so that the first entity has immediate access to up-to-date entity data” at dependent Claims 3,13, the Examiner points to MPEP 2106.05 (c) ¶5 which states that a “transformation” of an article means that the “article” has changed to a different state or thing…. For data, mere manipulation of basic mathematical constructs the paradigmatic abstract idea, has not been deemed a transformation11. Here, the dependent Claims 3,13 recite the latter; namely manipulation of basic metric based mathematical constructs, to a “third format” for subsequent notification. Yet, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I A. iv. generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions through mathematical correlations, for organizing this information into a new form12 remains an example of abstract mathematical relationships. It then follows that here, the analogous “transforming the metrics associated with the” “first” and “second” entity[es] “into the standardized third format”, would be examples of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions through mathematical correlations, for organizing this information into a new [third] form, which would similarly not render the claims eligible. In the absence of a readily apparent material transformation13, Examiner also relies on MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h) tests, as applied above. For example, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) iii cites FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016) monitoring audit log data executed on a general-purpose computer, is still an example of invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, which would not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. Looking closer at Fairwarning supra, Examiner finds that the Federal Circuit ruled that compilation and combination of disparate information sources and that the patented method made it possible to generate a full picture to be further announced on a computer environment did nothing to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas14. It would then follow that here, the compilation and combination or analogous transformation of metrics associated “first” and “second” entit[ies] of respective “first” and “second” format[s] into the “standardized third format”, would similarly not render the claims patent eligible. Examiner also points to MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) which cites Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), where the claimed steps [analogously] described "creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem"). Examiner follows such MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) example to submit that here the analogous “transforming the metrics associated with the first entity into a standardized third format”, “transforming the metrics associated with the second entity into the standardized third format”, “updating the database with the transformed metrics and transmitting a message to at least the first entity regarding the updated database so that the first entity has immediate access to up-to-date entity data”, at dependent Claims 3,13 would similarly not provide anything more than collecting, displaying, and manipulating data, with the additional limitations providing only a result-oriented solution that lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications. Thus, here as in Intellectual Ventures I, as cited by MPEP 2106.05(f), the “transforming” limitations of dependent Claims 3,13, along with the other computerized functions identified above, do not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because as shown above, the additional computer-based elements merely apply the already recited abstract idea, [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and/or provide a narrowing of the abstract idea to a field of user or technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(h)]. Examiner follows MPEP 2106.05 (d) II and carries over the MPEP 2106.05 (f), (h) findings as sufficient option for evidence that the additional computer-based elements also do not provide significantly more, without having to rely on the conventionality test of MPEP 2106.05(d).
Yet, assuming arguendo that additional evidence would now be required at Step 2B to demonstrate that the above combination of additional elements are well-understood routine and conventional, the Examiner would also point to MPEP 2106.05(d) I. 2. a. Specifically
- Original Specification ¶ [0038] recites at high level of generality: “The present disclosure also relates to an apparatus for performing the operations herein. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purposes, or it may comprise a general-purpose computer selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer. Such a computer program may be stored in a computer readable storage medium, such as, but is not limited to, any type of disk including floppy disks, optical disks, CD-ROMs, magnetic-optical disks, read-only memories (ROMs), random access memories (RAMs), EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnetic or optical cards, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), or any type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions, and each may be coupled to a computer system bus. Furthermore, the computers referred to in the specification may include a single processor or may be architectures employing multiple processor designs for increased computing capability”.
- Original Specification ¶ [0039] also recites at high level of generality: “The processes and displays presented herein are not inherently related to any particular computer or other apparatus. Various general-purpose systems may also be used with programs in accordance with the teachings herein, or it may prove convenient to construct more specialized apparatus to perform one or more method steps. The structure for a variety of these systems is discussed in the description below. In addition, any particular programming language that is sufficient for achieving the techniques and implementations of the present disclosure may be used. A variety of programming languages may be used to implement the present disclosure as discussed herein”.
- Original Specification ¶ [0009], ¶ [0017]recites at high level: “In some embodiments, the interface is a RESTful application programming interface in operable communication with the first entity”. Similarly, ¶ [0089] 4th sentence. Also, the Examiner notes that Applicant has not invented “RESTful application programming interface”, nor is the Applicant alleging as such.
- Original Specification ¶ [00103] recites at high level of generality: “Having been provided with the description and illustration of the present application, one skilled in the art may envision variations, modifications, and alternate embodiments falling within the general inventive concept discussed in this application that do not depart from the scope of the following claims”.
If necessary, Examiner would further point to MPEP 2106.05(d) I. 2. c.
- US 20170052884 A1 ¶ [0013] 3rd sentence disclosing generic operations to interfaces specific to a RESTful web service application.
- US 20170364105 A1 ¶ [0115] 2nd sentence reciting: the API interface may be categorized as a RESTful interface, which would be well understood by those having skill in the art.
Examiner also points to MPEP 2106.05(d) II i. showing conventionality for i. receiving or transmitting data over a network, including utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information. This is relevant to the amended recitation of having a “processor” “connected to the first entity over a network” as amended at independent Claim 1.
Examiner also submits, in arguendo that if necessary to provide evidence for conventionality of “updating the at least one automation bot so that the automated process is performed manually based on the efficacy of the at least one automation bot” (Claims 1,11), such evidence is provided by:
- US 20250339968 A1 ¶ [0004] “In the conventional technology, after a device fault occurs to a transfer robot, a person on site switches the transfer robot into a manual mode, drags the transfer robot to an idle area for maintenance, and restores the system task after the transfer robot is repaired. If an abnormal transfer robot is carrying a turnover box, a task of the turnover box may be delayed, and cannot be processed in time. The task can only be restored to normal status after maintenance of the transfer robot is completed, and then this previous task is continued” , then also corroborated by its preponderance a myriad of other publications such as:
- US 7194757 B1 column 5 lines 60-62: It is also an advantage of the present system and method to provide a fall-back manual system of delivery of content when all else fails or the intended recipient is not a part of the system. The system and method also includes a fall-back manual delivery facility when automated delivery cannot be accomplished through the facilities shown in Fig.1.
- US 20230298754 A1 ¶ [0061] For those who have CGM and pump data in real-time we see a very sophisticated hybrid: Not only can Minerva post your average ISF and effective meal dosing for an averaged period, but it also can warn you of an impending low. But Minerva can do more than advise; it can close the loop. Minerva could, for example, give a correction dose every 2 hours based on all the recent ISF values for that time of day, the starting CGM and time after the meal. It could decrease the dose appropriately the second time around for stacking. The well-rested parent who has relied on Minerva could go back to manual or continue with automatic in the morning.
- US 20230412611 A1 ¶ [0198] last sentence: the user has the option to accept the auto fill (auto resolving), or reject the auto fill, and revert back to manual data model mapping.
- US 20150178712 A1 mid-¶ [0077] If unable to find the check automatically, the application falls back on asking the diner to manually enter the table number at which he or she is seated and the service provider computer system 130 then may retrieve check data from the POS computer 112 using a query that includes the table number.
- US 20130304513 A1 ¶ [0057] last sentence: The operator may also disable the autonomous drive mode selection system 235, reverting back to a local manually controlled mode.
- US 20170113687 A1 ¶ [0081] last sentence: For example, if the operational mode device in FIG. 5 switches control of the SDV 202 from the manual mode to the autonomous mode, and then switches control of the SDV 202 back to the manual mode a few seconds later, the driver and/or SDV will likely become confused and/or ineffective.
- US 20160026180 A1 ¶ [0012] The driver will generally be able to switch between these two modes at will, but the vehicle 10 may automatically transfer back to “manual” under certain conditions. Thus, as mentioned briefly above, the conditions under which an automated vehicle is likely to switch between automated and manual modes is referred to as its “transfer-of-control” policy. ¶ [0003] 2nd sentence: Control will typically be transferred to the driver, for example, when the driving task it too difficult to accomplish in an automated mode or when the confidence of the automatic system in its own performance is lower than some threshold value
- US 20180059659 A1 ¶ [0094] As described above, according to the third embodiment of the present invention, in a case where the terrain or building configuration at the landing site is complex, the landing site is difficult to see from the air, or the signal range of the access point 2 is short and the landing site cannot be found, then the unmanned aerial vehicle switches from automatic landing mode to manual operation by the operator 708. Near the landing site, image data captured by the camera is transmitted through a wireless LAN, which can transmit large volumes of data, enabling clear imagery to be seen by the operator during remote operation.
- US 20220012496 A1 ¶ [0429] The security system according to Supplementary Note 2, in which, when the unmanned aerial vehicle loses sight of the target from the image in the tracking mode, the unmanned aerial vehicle transmits a notification indicating that the sight of the target is lost to the terminal, and switches to the manual mode.
- US 20250121915 A1 ¶ [0066] In case the target person arrives at a place where it is not possible to see the guidance robot 20 (for example, the next room or the like) although the position information is very close, the control of the guidance robot 20 may be configured to be switched from automatic control by the control unit 26 to manual operation by the observer on land when it is not possible to determine that the guidance robot 20 has reached the position of the target person within a predetermined time using methods (2) to (6) described below even though the distance between the guidance robot 20 and the mobile terminal 30 is within the predetermined range
- US 20140039517 A1 ¶ [0448] Accordingly, force overrider 375 interprets this second evaluation of step 834 testing true as an indication that manipulator is in an undesirable state. Manipulator controller 124 therefore branches to steps 864 and 866 to transition the manipulator back to the manual mode and deactivate the instrument.
Similarly at US 20140039681 A1
- US 20100144383 A1 ¶ [0607] A system of networked devices and subsystems that accommodates same-site redundancy of gateway devices, with automatic switch-over should a primary fail, and the option of automatic or manual switch-back.
In conclusion, Claims 1-7, 9-17,19, 20 although directed to statutory categories (“method” or process, “system” or machine) they still recite, or at least describe or set forth the abstract idea (Step 2A prong one), with their additional, computer based elements not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B). Thus, the Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 20 are not patent eligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1,6,7,9-11,16,17,19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention as disclosed by:
Driesen; Volker US 20100332585 A1 hereinafter Driesen. As per,
Claims 1,11 Driesen teaches “A method for implementing an automated process, the method comprising: / “A system for implementing an automated process, the system comprising: an interface for” (Driesen ¶ [0003] implementation of present disclosure include methods of automating manual tasks executed on an application server. ¶ [0009] The present disclosure further provides a system for implementing the methods provided herein. The system includes one or more processors, and a computer-readable storage medium coupled to the one or more processors having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations in accordance with implementations of the methods provided herein. Also ¶ [0080], ¶ [0082], ¶ [0083]):
- “receiving at an interface at least one quantification metric associated with a first entity” (Driesen ¶ [0045] 2nd-5th sentences: request include an embedded file (XML). The provided rules are used to extract the parameters and imported them into the rule database 210. the rules can be specified for different application servers, procedures, and/or tools executing on the application servers. In this manner, the rules to be applied to extract the parameters can be identified based on which application server, which procedure, and/or tool.
Driesen ¶ [0043] last two sentences: the rules may be used to extract parameters from a particular manual task request, or string, received at the management infrastructure 204 from a tool (e.g. tool 228). By way of one non-limiting example, the string may include data requesting that more memory be added to a database (e.g. manual task request= Add 100MB to Database)
Driesen ¶ [0044] 1st-3rd sentences: intervention automation engine 208 extracts the parameters from the string and matches the to automation modules that can execute the manual task. The automation module can be deployed to application server 202 to achieve the task. Using the memory increase example above, the automation module can be executed on the application server to increase the memory of the database by the requested amount. Similarly see ¶ [0076]).
- “receiving at the interface at least one qualification metric associated with the first entity”;
(Driesen ¶ [0045],[0044] 4th-5th sentences the rules pertain to task preparation [qualification] on a tool. That is, a rule may prohibit [or disqualify] the performance of tasks on a tool until the tool has been prepared [or qualified] accordingly for the intended task. See a different example at
Driesen ¶ [0046] 3rd-4th sentences: The role can be used as a filter to limit the rules applied to the manual task request, and/or to limit the automation modules that can be implemented. In this manner, less than all of the rules in the rule database 210, and/or less than all of the automation modules can be reviewed to expedite automation of the manual task)
- “determining, using a processor executing instructions stored on memory and connected to the first entity over a network”/“a processor executing instructions stored on a memory to provide” / “a first automation decision for the first entity to implement an automated process based on the quantification metric associated with the first entity and the qualification metric associated with the first entity”; (Driesen ¶ [0019] architecture 100 support and perform tasks to increase the efficiency of a system…lifecycle management architecture 100 represents a change management architecture to oversee changes within a network of systems. For example, lifecycle management architecture 100 is used at a service provider to group and assign similar tasks of several similar systems to manager or administrator, enabling the manager to automate the tasks. In general, architecture 100 operate to request, plan and prioritize tasks, manage tools, manage process implementations, evaluate system changes, automate tasks & processes. ¶ [0022] 1st sentence: System 100 is included a distributed client/server system that spans networks 112. ¶ [0041] 1st sentence: infrastructure 200 includes application servers 202, management infrastructure 204, and shared file system 206. Further ¶ [0043] 1st-2nd sentences: management infrastructure 204 includes intervention automation engine 208 that retrieve and store automated modules and rules. The intervention automation engine 208 includes a rule database 210 pertaining to tasks generated and executed by infrastructure 200. ¶ [0043] last 2 sentences: rules extract parameters from manual task request or string, received at management infrastructure 204 from tool 228. By example, the string include data requesting that more memory be added to a database (manual task request=Add 100MB to Database) [quantification example]. ¶ [0044] 3rd sentences: Using the memory increase example, the automation module is executed on application server to increase the memory of the database by requested amount. Similar see ¶ [0076]. Also, per
Driesen ¶ [0044] 4th-5th sentences: the rules pertain to task preparation [or qualification] on a tool. That is, a rule may prohibit [or decide to disqualify] the performance of tasks on a tool until the tool has been prepared [or qualified] accordingly for the intended task. Then,
Driesen ¶ [0051] 1st-3rd sentences: If intervention handler 214 receives request to perform a manual request, the intervention handler 214 uses the rules stored in rules database 210 to determine if an automation module exists in modules database 212. If this is the case, the module is written to shared file system 206 and management infrastructure 204 is used to start the tool on application server 202 using host agent 222. The intervention handler 214 checks the successful execution of the module. Similarly, ¶ [0053] 3rd-5th sentences, [0073] 4th- 5th sentences)
-“determining using the processor, a first manual decision for the first entity to implement a manual process based on the quantification metric associated with the first entity and the qualification metric associated with the first entity” (Driesen ¶ [0051] 1st sentence: intervention handler 214 receives request to perform a manual request. Specifically, at ¶ [0073] 5th sentence: the process also determines whether a particular task should be performed manually. Specifically, at Fig.3 step 314: Is appropriate AM [automation module] present?->No-> step 316: Add manual task to task list for manual execution. Also ¶ [0062] 1st sentence, noting the decision for manual task request is based on parameters in the request, further exemplified such as: request for more [thus quantification] memory per ¶ [0043] last 2 sentences, and task preparation [or qualification] on a tool that may prohibit [or decide to disqualify] the performance of tasks on a tool until the tool has been prepared [or qualified] accordingly for the intended task, per ¶ [0044] 4th-5th sentences: the rules pertain to task preparation [or qualification] on a tool. That is, a rule may prohibit [or decide to disqualify] the performance of tasks on a tool until the tool has been prepared [or qualified] accordingly for the intended task. Similarly see ¶ [0076])
- “providing at least one automation bot for the first entity to implement the automated process based on the automation decision”; (Driesen ¶ [0036] 1st-2nd sentences: the architecture 100 assign a list of manual tasks to a particular role, such that when a user (client 108) accesses a resource related to a manual task, the user is mapped to the team responsible for the task. The user can work to automate the manual task and create an automation module [or bot] that perform the task automatically in the future. ¶ [0049] 4th sentence: Such an exemplar automation module can be used to extend the file system used in a task performed by the selected automation module 212, for example. ¶ [0065] 1st-2nd sentences: If the automation module executes successfully, the original tool and procedure can be triggered to resume action on the current work list. In addition, the automation module can be archived in the shared file system 206 for future use by other tools and servers. Similarly, ¶ [0072] last sentence. Also, ¶ [0063] 2nd-3rd sentences noting another example where the application server 202 may determine that a task can be performed by an automation module. The application server 202 can select the automation modules stored in the automation modules database 212 based on parameters extracted from the manual task request).
- “capturing at least one automation metric based on implementations of the automated process using the at least one automation bot”, (Driesen ¶ [0051] 3rd-5th sentences: intervention handler 214 checks successful execution of the module. If the module is executed successfully, procedure executor 216 is notified, and the request for a manual action is processed successfully. If the module is not executed successfully, the request of the automation module sent to management infrastructure 204 is an error message passed to procedure executor 216, which presents this message to the administrator as a manual action. Similarly, ¶ [0053] 2nd-7th sentences: procedure executor module 214 start the automation modules using the tool handler. If intervention handler 214 receives a request to perform a manual request, the tool handler uses rules stored in 210 to identify if an automation module exists in modules 212. the module is written to the shared file system 206 and the tool handler is used to start the tool on application server 202 using the host agent 222. The intervention handler 214 then checks the successful execution of the module using the tool handler. If the module executed successfully, the procedure executor 216 is notified, that the request for a manual action is processed successfully. If the module is not executed successfully, the request may be an error message that is sent to the tool handler. The error message is passed to the procedure executor 216, which presents this message to the administrator as a manual action) “the at least one automation metric including at least one of a number of automation bots implemented by the first entity” (Driesen ¶ [0063] 3rd sentence: based on parameters extracted from the task request, application server 202 select the automation modules stored in automation modules database 212. ¶ [0079] 6th-8th sentences: based on the parameters, automation modules [or bots] are identified. The identified automation modules is subsequently implemented to automatically execute a manual task without human intervention, as detailed above. Also, ¶ [0067] 2nd-7th sentences: noting another example where infrastructure 200 accept plug-in automation modules. In particular, the plug-in modules associate manual task requests to certain procedures executed by a specific tool. The tool can then provide exit points where the tasks can be inserted. The infrastructure 200 use services to execute the automation modules using the plug-in modules. For example, the services are used on the system (e.g. tool) to transfer the automation modules from a central managing infrastructure 204 to the tool), “a number of processes automated by the first entity” (Driesen ¶ [0067] 1st-4th sentences: the creation and execution of automation modules ensure that administrator tasks are automated. For example, the infrastructure 200 can accept plug-in automation modules. In particular the plug-in modules can associate manual task requests to certain procedures [or processes] executed by a specific tool. The tool can then provide exit points where the tasks can be inserted. ¶ [0074] 1st,2nd,4th-7th sentences: In step 300, the process determines if a request to execute procedure is received. Such procedures can include, lifecycle management procedures [or processes] for application servers, such as application installation and upgrading… If a request to execute a procedure is received, the procedure is retrieved from the procedure store in step 302. For example, the procedure executor 216 can retrieve an appropriate procedure from the procedure database 218. In step 304, the process can initiate execution of a particular tool on an application server to perform the requested procedure. For example, the application server 202 can initiate execution of a tool 228), “or a number of screens navigated through automated bots”,
- “wherein the at least one automation metric indicates an efficiency of the at least one automation bot” (Driesen ¶ [0028] 2nd-4th sentences: Providing organization and automation of manual tasks increase efficiency in managing systems, procedures, and tasks. The techniques and components described herein may be used to reduce the operation costs for offerings based on Software as a Service (SaaS). Providing an SaaS offering can imply providing a large number of similar or even identical services to a very large group of users or customers. When offering SaaS, the provider will want to minimize costs to maximize profit. ¶ [0029] 2nd sentence: architecture 100 reduce the costs by automating a number of manual actions and managing any remaining manual actions in an efficient manner. ¶ [0030] 1st-3rd sentences: The automation by design targets the design phase of a tool or product. Here, the operation cost and level of automated operation are design criteria for the product… this approach is very efficient. ¶ [0038] 3rd sentence: In general infrastructure 200 can be used to increase efficiency of service tasks and processes by implementing rules and handling architecture in a lifecycle management system).
- “updating the at least one automation bot so that the automated process is performed manually based on the at least one automation metric based on the efficacy of the at least one automation bot” (Driesen teaches many examples such as
Driesen ¶ [0051] last sentence: If the module is not executed successfully, for example, the request of automation module sent to the management infrastructure 204 is an error message that is passed to procedure executor 216, which presents this message to the administrator as a manual action. Similarly, ¶ [0053] last 2 sentences: If the module is not executed successfully, the request may be an error message sent to the tool handler. The error message is passed to the procedure executor 216, which presents it to the administrator as a manual action. Similarly,
¶ [0054] last 2 sentences: If intervention automation engine 208 cannot execute automation module, the automation intervention engine 208 notifies management infrastructure 204 (through procedure executor 216) to keep the manual action as such and present it to the administrator.
Driesen ¶ [0040] 1st-2nd sentences: For example, the infrastructure 200 track a procedure to determine where manual tasks occur and where automation modules could be implemented to execute the manual tasks. In some implementations, the architecture 200 can access services to execute portions of a procedure which are automated. In some implementations, the services can execute the automated tasks and switch back to a manual mode to complete additional manual tasks. For example, at Fig.3 below at step 312->314->N->step 316 and ¶ [0076] If, in step 306, it is determined that the received request is a manual task request, the process can apply rules to extract one or more parameters from the manual task request in step 312. For example, if a particular request includes using (i) a file system 234 and (ii) three gigabytes of memory, the application server 202 can apply corresponding rules for parameters (i) and (ii). The rules in this example may include increasing memory and using the particular data in the file system 234. Most importantly at ¶ [0077] 1st-4th sentences: In step 314, it is determined whether an appropriate automation module is present in the system for the received manual task request. This determination is made based on the extracted parameter(s). If an automation module does not exist for the task, the process can add the manual task to a task list for manual execution. Finally ¶ [0070] noting a different example where: If the tool does not have appropriate permission if, for example, an administrator had changed the permission for security reason, the manual task would be to change the permission in a way that the tool can exchange and use the tool executable 226. The tool can then stop, send a message to the management infrastructure 204 indicating that permission have to be changed to perform the task. The management infrastructure 204 can provide suitable permission by sending manual task info (e.g., permission information) to allow the tool to resume operation with the step that previously failed) “and”
- “implementing at least a second automation bot to perform the manual process”
(Driesen Fig.3 noting on its iterative or repetitive feedback loop steps 316->308-> procedure complete?->No->310 continue tool execution->306->312->314 Is appropriate AM [automation module] present?->Yes->318->320: execute [or implement] the AM [automation module])
PNG
media_image1.png
578
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Driesen Fig.3 in support of rejection arguments
Claims 6,16 Driesen teaches all the limitations in claims 1,11 above.
Driesen teaches “wherein the at least one quantification metric associated with the entity includes a savings-based metric associated with gain in productivity resultant from the automated process” (Driesen ¶ [0028] 3rd-5th sentences: The techniques and components herein used to reduce the operation costs for offerings based on Software as a Service (SaaS). Providing an SaaS offering imply providing a large number of similar or even identical services to a very large group of users or customers. When offering SaaS, the provider will want to minimize costs to maximize profit. ¶ [0029] 2nd sentence: architecture 100 reduce the costs by automating a number of manual actions and managing any remaining manual actions in an efficient manner. ¶ [0031] 3rd-4th sentences: a hosting operator can add automation modules. This can result in a much shorter time to market and thus, may quickly decrease the operations cost), “manual work time saved resultant from the automated process” (Driesen ¶ [0029] 2nd sentence: architecture 100 reduce the costs by automating a number of manual actions and managing any remaining manual actions in an efficient manner. ¶ [0031] 3rd-4th sentences: a hosting operator can add automation modules. This can result in a much shorter time to market and thus, may quickly decrease the operations cost), “savings obtained from error reduction resultant from the automated process, or entity employee cost savings resultant from the automated process”.
Claims 7,17 Driesen teaches all the limitations in claims 1,11 above. Furthermore,
Driesen teaches “wherein the at least one quantification metric associated with the first entity includes a cost-based metric” (Driesen ¶ [0028] 3rd-5th sentences: The techniques and components described herein may be used to reduce the operation costs for offerings based on Software as a Service (SaaS). Providing an SaaS offering can imply providing a large number of similar or even identical services to a very large group of users or customers. When offering SaaS, the provider will want to minimize costs to maximize profit. ¶ [0029] Manual tasks and activities related to implementation or change management may be responsible for a large part of overhead costs involved in maintaining hosted environments. In some implementations, the architecture 100 can reduce the costs by automating a number of manual actions and managing any remaining manual actions in an efficient manner. Automating manual activities can include automating by design, automating by specific automation module, or automating customer specific procedures. Within the development and usage lifecycle of a tool or procedure used by a service provider, the automation mechanisms refer to different lifecycle stages. ¶ [0030] 1st-2nd sentences: The “automation by design” targets the design phase of a tool or product. Here, the operation cost and level of automated operation are design criteria for the product. ¶ [0031] The “automation by specific automation module” targets both the development and implementation phase of the product. The tools and procedures provided by the vendor can include these automation modules. In addition, a hosting operator can add automation modules. This can result in a much shorter “time to market” and thus, may quickly decrease the operations cost).
Claims 9,19 Driesen teaches all the limitations in to claims 1,11 above. Driesen further teaches
- “generating a performance report of each of the at least one bot indicating a performance level of each of the bots” (Driesen ¶ [0051] 3rd-5th sentences: intervention handler 214 checks the successful execution of the module. If the module is executed successfully, the procedure executor 216 is notified, and request for manual action is processed successfully. If the module is not executed successfully, the request of the automation module sent to the management infrastructure 204 is an error message that is passed to the procedure executor 216, which presents this message to the administrator as a manual action. Also ¶ [0053] 5th -8th sentences: The intervention handler 214 then checks the successful execution of the module using the tool handler. If the module executed successfully, the procedure executor 216 is notified, that the request for a manual action is processed successfully. If the module is not executed successfully, the request may be an error message that is sent to the tool handler. The error message is passed to the procedure executor 216, which presents this message [or report] to the administrator as a manual action. ¶ [0065] 1st sentence: If the automation module executes successfully, the original tool and procedure can be triggered to resume action on the current work list).
Claims 10,20 Driesen teaches all limitations in claims 1,11 above.
Driesen further teaches “wherein updating the automation decision involves”
- “modifying the automated process based on the captured automation”.
(Driesen provides several examples: Fig.3, ¶ [0038] 5th sentence: handling architecture provide a utility to handle error messages, user requests, route changes, tool changes, or other events occurring within architectures 100 or 200. ¶ [0051] 3rd-5th sentences: intervention handler 214 checks successful execution of the module. If the module is executed successfully, executor 216 is notified and the request is processed successfully. If module is not executed successfully, the request of the automation module sent to management infrastructure 204 is an error message passed to procedure executor 216, which presents this message to the administrator as manual action. Similarly, ¶ [0053] 2nd-7th sentences: procedure executor module 214 start the automation modules using the tool handler. If intervention handler 214 receives a request to perform a manual request, the tool handler uses the rules stored in 210 to identify if an automation module exists in modules 212. the module is written to the shared file system 206 and the tool handler is used to start the tool on application server 202 using the host agent 222. The intervention handler 214 then checks successful execution of the module using the tool handler. If the module executed successfully, the procedure executor 216 is notified, that the request for a manual action is processed successfully. If the module is not executed successfully, the request may be an error message that is sent to the tool handler. The error message is passed to the procedure executor 216, which presents this message to the administrator as a manual action. Similarly, ¶ [0065] 1st- 2nd sentences: If the automation module executes successfully, the original tool and procedure is triggered to resume action on the current work list. In addition, the automation module can be archived in the shared file system 206 for future use by other tools and servers.
Driesen ¶ [0070] application server 202 initiate a procedure by an administrator computer and instantiate a tool on application server 202 to perform an upgrade. The tool and procedures related to the tool executable by the application server 202. For example, a tool can exchange an executable and configuration file to upgrade to a new version of software. As such, the tool may receive a manual task with a tool executable 226. If the tool has the appropriate permission to upgrade the software, the upgrade can occur. If the tool does not have appropriate permission if, for example, an administrator had changed the permission for security reason, the manual task would be to change [or modify] the permission in a way that the tool can exchange and use the tool executable 226. The tool can then stop, send a message to the management infrastructure 204 indicating that permission have to be changed to perform the task. The management infrastructure 204 can provide suitable permission by sending manual task information (e.g., permission information) to allow the tool to resume operation with the step that previously failed).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rejections under 35 § U.S.C. 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Driesen as applied to claims 1,11 above, in view of
Narala et al, US 11120380 B1 hereinafter Narala. As per,
Claims 2,12 Driesen teaches all limitations in claims 1,11 above. Furthermore,
Driesen doesn’t referencing a database storing data regarding a second entity including
- “at least one quantification metric associated with the second entity”
- “at least one qualification metric associated with the second entity”, “and”
- “whether the second entity implements an automated process”
- “wherein the automation decision is further based on the data regarding the second entity”
Narala however in analogous integration of new computing environment teaches/suggest
“referencing a database storing data regarding a second entity including”:
- “at least one quantification metric associated with the second entity”
(Narala column 24 lines 60-column 25 line 3: Pre-merger standard questionnaire 300 may be filled in phase one of a framework for assessing a target company's information risk program and include closed 302 and open-ended 302 questions that focus on obtaining from the target company, information related to the amount of annual IT budget and the % of that budget which may be allocated to their information risk program, among others. For example, see
Narala Fig.3: noting under the information risk indicators, the best practices quantifying:
How much is your annual IT budget allocation?
What % of IT budget is allocated to Information Risk Program?
Narala column 14 lines 21-50 for details of the quantification)
- “at least one qualification metric associated with the second entity”,
(Narala column 24 lines 60-column 25 line 3: Pre-merger standard questionnaire 300 may be filled in phase one of a framework for assessing a target company's information risk program and include closed 302 and open-ended 302 questions that focus on obtaining from the target company, information related to the amount of annual IT budget and the % of that budget which may be allocated to their information risk program, among others
Narala Fig.3: noting under the information risk indicators, data loss prevention
Do you classify data based on sensitivity?) “and”
- “whether the second entity implements an automated process”
(Narala Fig.3: Do you have a policy on email security? -> Yes;
Do you have an intrusion Detection System implemented? -> Yes
Do you regularly scan all system for viruses? -> No
Does your company have a virus protection program in place?-> Yes
Does your company enforce a patch management process? -> Yes
Narala Fig.4: Do you develop applications internally? -> Yes
Do you have a process to measure potential Application risks? -> Yes
Do you have patch management coverage for all systems? -> Yes)
- “wherein the automation decision is further based on the data regarding the second entity”
(Narala column 5 lines 47-58: computer of acquiring entity identify gaps corresponding to integration of computer environment of acquiring and target entity determined based on format of the subset of data files. The computer of acquiring entity further generate an integration project comprising action plans having set of activities addressing the integration gaps, wherein upon completion of the set of activities, the data records stored in databases associated with a computing environment of the acquiring entity and the target entity are integrated. For example,
Narala Fig.6, column 34 lines 43-49: In step 606, a computer of acquiring entity identifies integration gaps corresponding to integration of the computer environment of acquiring and target entities determined based on integration risk score of each subcomponent. The integration gaps may be associated with at least one subcomponent of the set of subcomponents. see column 33 lines 30-31 noting the subcomponent can be hardware and/or software. Furthermore see
Narala Fig.6, column 34 line 62 - column 35 line 7: In step 608 , a computer of the acquiring entity analyze the obtained info concerning overall integration risk score of each subcomponent, and any other suitable information to identify integration gaps corresponding to the integration of the computer environment of the acquiring entity and the target entity in the integration process, and then recommend [or decide] activities in an appropriate action plan to address the integration gaps. In other words, the computer of acquiring entity generated an integration project, which include action plans having a set of activities addressing the integration gaps).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Driesen “method”/”system” to have included Narala’s teachings in order to have provided enhanced information for modifying the at least one subcomponent to enable operational and seamless integration of the computer system and environment of the acquiring entity and the target entity (Narala column 35 lines 46-54 in view of MPEP 2143G and/or F). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Driesen ¶ [0086]-¶ [0088] in view of Narala column 33 lines 10-19, column 37 lines 3-10, column 40 lines 42-44, column 40 line 66-column 41 line 3, column 41 lines 57-67 in Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar business asset management field of endeavor. In such combination each element would have merely performed same analytical and data transfer function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Driesen in view of Narala, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or econocmailly desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 3,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Driesen / Narala, as applied to claims 2,12 above, and in further view of
Nicastro et al, US 20020073114 A1 hereinafter Nicastro. As per,
Claims 3,13. Driesen teaches all limitations in claims 2,12 above.
Driesen ¶ [0039] recites a structured format, such as XML or a similar format
Driesen does not explicitly recite: “wherein the metrics associated with the first entity are in a first format and the metrics associated with the second entity are in a second format, and the method further includes:
transforming the metrics associated with the first entity into a standardized third format,
transforming the metrics associated with the second entity into the standardized third format,
updating the database with the transformed metrics, and
transmitting a message to at least the first entity regarding the updated database so that the first entity has immediate access to up-to-date entity data” as claimed. Nevertheless,
Narala in analogous integration of a new computing environment teaches/suggests
“wherein the metrics associated with the first entity are in a first format and the metrics associated with the second entity are in a second format” (Narala column 9 lines 12-14: present disclosure describes a system and method for information risk assessment, which can be implemented in mergers and acquisitions (M&A). Specifically at column 4 lines 52-56, target entity having the format which is different from the format of the data files in the category of the data records stored in the or more databases associated with the computing environment of the acquiring entity. Similar Narala column 5 lines 43-47. Also column 37 lines 26-30, “and the method further includes:
- “transforming the metrics associated with the first entity into a standardized third format”
(Narala column 7 line 66-column 8 line 3: the system and method disclosed here provide standardized means for assessing critical information security risks, which provide a complete understanding of the target company's risk exposure for informed decision-making. Specifically,
Narala column 38 lines 51-55: during integration of the computer system and environment of the acquiring entity and the target entity, all the database records of both the target entity and the acquiring entity are merged and converted into one format. During the merging process, a new identifier is created for the database records of either the acquiring entity or the target entity whose format has been converted, and then the new identifier is linked to an old identifier of an old format of the same database records)
- “transforming the metrics associated with the second entity into the standardized third format”
(Narala column 7 line 66-column 8 line 3: the system and method disclosed here provide standardized means for assessing critical information security risks, which provide a complete understanding of the target company's risk exposure for informed decision-making. Specifically,
Narala column 38 lines 51-55: during integration of the computer system and environment of the acquiring entity and the target entity, all the database records of both the target entity and the acquiring entity are merged and converted into one format. During the merging process, a new identifier is created for the database records of either the acquiring entity or the target entity whose format has been converted, and then the new identifier is linked to an old identifier of an old format of the same database records)
- “updating the database with the transformed metrics” (Narala column 38 lines 55-64: During the merging process, a new identifier is created for the database records of either the acquiring entity or target entity whose format has been converted, then the new identifier is linked to an old identifier of an old format of same database records. This enables users of computing systems of both the target entity and the acquiring entity to build a search query to search a particular data record using old identifiers in an integrated database of the integrated computing system, as the old identifier links to new identifier to identify the searched database record. Also, column 5 lines 47-58: upon completion of the activities, the data records stored in databases associated with a computing environment of the acquiring entity and the target entity are integrated)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Driesen “method”/”system” to have included Narala’s teachings in order to have provided enhanced information for modifying the at least one subcomponent to enable operational and seamless integration of the computer system and environment of the acquiring entity and the target entity (Narala column 35 lines 46-54 in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). Predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Driesen ¶ [0086]-¶ [0088] in view of Narala column 33 lines 10-19, column 37 lines 3-10, column 40 lines 42-44, column 40 line 66-column 41 line 3, column 41 lines 57-67 in Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar business asset management field of endeavor. In such combination each element would have merely performed same analytical and data transfer function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Driesen in view of Narala, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or econocmailly desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
* Further still*
Driesen / Narala as a combination does not explicitly recite:
- “transmitting a message to at least the first entity regarding the updated database so that the first entity has immediate access to up-to-date entity data” as claimed.
* Nevertheless *
Nicastro in analogous tool for business asset management teaches or suggests:
- “transmitting a message to at least the first entity regarding the updated database so that the first entity has immediate access to up-to-date entity data”
(Nicastro ¶ [0077] 5th sentence-¶ [0078]: The system allows management of the designing and construction from beginning to end, and information is gathered and updated from multiple sources throughout the project. The system is also flexible enough to accommodate many different types of businesses and projects. The system provides this solution to users in real time, so that all information modified by users is instantly available to other users in the system, creating even greater efficiency. A different example at ¶ [0241] last two sentences Multiple shortcuts can point to any single document. This ensures that everyone can access the most updated information while only one user is maintaining the file.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Driesen / Narala “method”/”system” to have further included Nicastro’s teachings to have more effectively integrated data from different applications (Nicastro ¶ [0035] in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F) while, at same time having more effectively allowed for integrated data for change management throughout the process (Nicastro ¶ [0036] in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Driesen ¶ [0086]-¶ [0088] in view of Narala column 33 lines 10-19, and in further view of Nicastro at ¶ [0547].
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar business asset management field of endeavor. In such combination each element would have merely performed same analytical and data transfer function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Driesen / Narala in further view of Nicastro, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or econocmailly desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 4,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Driesen as applied to claims 1,11, and in view of
Prasad et al, US 20200073639 A1 hereinafter Prasad. As per,
Claims 4,14 Driesen teaches all limitations in claims 1,11 above. Furthermore,
Driesen does not teach “wherein the interface is a RESTful application programming interface in operable communication with the first entity” as claimed.
Prasad in analogous automated process analysis and automation implementation
teaches or suggests: “wherein the interface is a RESTful application programming interface in operable communication with the first entity” (Prasad ¶ [0042] 2nd-3rd sentence: … automation platform 110 may provide a set of questionnaire questions, a set of options for configuring the process assessment, a set of results of performing the process assessment, and/or the like via the web-based front end. In some implementations, the web-based front end may be configured to access a database storing data as described herein, such as using …front-end may use representational state transfer (REST) or RESTful application programming interfaces (APIs)).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Driesen “method/system” to have included Prasad’s teachings to have effectively reduced the utilization of computing resources, to have improved overall system performance due to efficient and effective allocation of resources (Prasad ¶ [0014] 3rd sentence in view of MEP 2143 G) and to have automatically determined an effectiveness level of implementing the recommendation by testing the process in a sandbox environment or by monitoring a project associated with the process after enabling the tool (Prasad ¶ [0066] in view of MPEP 2143 G). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skills of one of ordinary skills in the art articulated by Driesen ¶ [0086]-[0088] in view of Prasad ¶ [0063] 4th sentence.
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in similar automated process analysis and automation implementation field of endeavor. In such combination each element would have merely performed same data analytic & processing function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements per Driesen in view of Prasad, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like puzzle pieces in a logical complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 5,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Driesen as applied to claims 1,11, and in view of
Freudiger US 20170124336 A1 hereinafter Freudiger. As per,
Claims 5,15 Driesen teaches all the limitations in claims 1,11 above.
Driesen but does not explicitly recite “anonymization” as in:
- “performing an anonymization procedure on the received at least one quantification metric and the at least one qualification metric” as explicitly claimed.
Freudiger however in analogous art of business operations with large amounts of data being shared (Freudiger ¶ [0002]), further teaches or suggests:
- “performing an anonymization procedure on the received at least one quantification metric and the at least one qualification metric” (Freudiger ¶ [0039] 3rd sentence: The attribute of matching PDF is then assigned (block 56) to the encrypted attribute. Additionally, the sensitivity value associated with the matching PDF can also be assigned (block 56) to the encrypted attribute and used to determine a level of anonymization for the data values of the encrypted attribute)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Driesen “method/system to include Freudiger’s teachings in order to have prevented data breach and ensure data protection though anonymization (Freudiger ¶ [0005] in view of MPEP 2143 G) by taking into consideration specific sensitivity levels (Freudiger ¶ [0042]-¶ [0051] in view of MPEP 2143 G). The predictability of such modification would have been further corroborated the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Driesen ¶ [0087]- ¶ [0088] in view of Freudiger ¶ [0008], ¶ [0055].
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar business operation with large amounts of data field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed same analytic and securing function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements evidenced by Driesen in view of Freudiger, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like puzzle pieces, in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable. (MPEP 2143 A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
- WO 2004084002 A2 Systems and methods for providing access to data stored in different types of data repositories
- Beauvais et al, Scale economies in cellular telephony Size matters, Journal Regulatory Economics 16, n3, 297-306, Nov, 1999
- US 20030078035 A1 reciting at ¶ [0008] …as a business grows, through a merger or acquisition, or for any of a multitude of other reasons. Various POI category data associated with businesses is used for various purposes, such as customers wanting to locate a particular business based on their current location and hours of operation. ¶ [0087] last sentence: Once any POI field modifications 502 have been completed, the user can update the POI fields by publishing 503 them 611, in which they will become immediately available 504 for other users to view and utilize for various applications.
- US 7415471 B1 column 4 lunes 53-59: The present inventor concluded that what are needed are methods and systems that allow the lender to efficiently accumulate data efficiently on a flow basis--near real time as the asset documents become available to the loan originator or another party concerned with loan maintenance--over the course of time so that the data is readily available and substantially reliable at the time of securitization.
- US 20210350426 A1 ¶ [0067] 2nd sentence: For example but not by way of limitation, the normalization involves accounting for the differences in the different alternate data sets, and standardizing that data to a common standard.
- US 20190015974 A1 ¶ [0068] If the resolution of the event case is determined to be valid, at Event 336, the event case processing management module 60, updates the event case and, at Event 338, the event case processing management module 60 sends a command to a RPA bot 80 to update all systems of record to reflect that the resolution is valid and include information obtained during the research and resolution process. At Event 332, the process of updating the systems of record may include uploading and ingesting documents (e.g., the event case checklist or the like) and/or returning the document ID from the file network for inclusion of the document or the document ID within the systems of record. ¶ [0069] At Event 334, the event case processing management module 60 sends a command to a RPA bot 80 to save the static data and communicate, such as via electronic mail or the like, to the parties of interest (e.g., the user/analyst of other entities within the organization and the like) a communication to notify the parties of that the resolution is valid. In specific embodiments of the invention, generating and communicating the email may include, at Event 332, uploading documents for attachment to the emails (e.g., the event case checklist or the like) and/or returning the document ID from the file network for inclusion of the document ID within email.
- US 20040186842 A1 ¶ [0004] 2nd - 3rd sentence: There may be many reasons for this. For example, an enterprise may have inherited some data repositories as a result of mergers, acquisitions or the like with other enterprises. ¶ [0019] In various embodiments, updating the common data repository may include several steps. For example, updating the common data repository may include storing the first data and the second data in the common data repository. In addition, it may include resolving a conflict between the first data and the second data. The first data and the second data may be translated into a common format expected by the common data repository.
- US 6154748 A column 2 lines 47-51: These different data processing systems may be in place as a result of combining previous projects, or because of mergers or acquisitions of companies having different data processing systems.
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 OCTAVIAN ROTARU whose telephone number is (571)270-7950. The examiner can normally be reached on 571.270.7950 from 9AM to 6PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICIA H MUNSON, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Octavian Rotaru/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 A
March 31st, 2026
1 FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
2 FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
3 FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
4 MPEP 2106.04(a): “examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible”.
5 RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
6 Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
7 lice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
8 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
9 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
10 FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
11 CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1994))
12 Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
13 manipulation of basic mathematical constructs the paradigmatic abstract idea, has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1994))
14 Elec. Power, 830 F.3d 1350 , [2016 BL 247416], 2016 WL 4073318 , at *4