DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 8 January 2026.
Claims 1 – 27 are presented for examination.
The following is a FINAL office action upon examination of application number 18/211609. Claims 1 – 27 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 8 January 2026, Applicant amended claims 1, 26, and 27.
Amendments to claims 1, 26, 27 are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection. Therefore, the 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims 1 – 27
are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The lack of prior data being required is arguably an improvement to the business method, but not to a technology or technical field. As technology is not required to perform any of the claimed functional steps, the recitation of technology is an example of “apply it.” There is no integration of the technology into the abstract idea. The 35 USC 101 is maintained for all claims.
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 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The independent claims recite selecting a predictive growth algorithm from a plurality, developing enterprise-specific revenue goals wherein the goals are based on the selected predictive growth algorithm, disaggregating goals into subgoals for portions of the enterprise, wherein the portions correspond to input pipelines for the enterprise, evaluating data from the input pipelines corresponding to the subgoals, identifying deficiencies in the data with respect to accomplishing a subgoal, and recommending further action to correct the deficiencies to achieve the subgoals. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance section 2106 of the MPEP (hereinafter, MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method, the computer program product, and the system are directed to an eligible categories of subject matter. Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A prong 1 of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of marketing or sales behaviors such as lead pipeline performance management, which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106. The claimed invention also recites an abstract idea that falls within the mental processes grouping. Particularly, independent claims recite selecting, developing goals, disaggregating goals, evaluating data, identifying deficiencies, and recommending further action. The limitations reciting the abstract idea in independent claims 1, 26, and 27 are selecting a predictive growth algorithm from a plurality, developing enterprise-specific revenue goals wherein the goals are based on the selected predictive growth algorithm, disaggregating goals into subgoals for portions of the enterprise, wherein the portions correspond to input pipelines for the enterprise, evaluating data from the input pipelines corresponding to the subgoals, identifying deficiencies in the data with respect to accomplishing a subgoal, and recommending further action to correct the deficiencies to achieve the subgoals.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to computer-implementation, software dashboard graphical user interface, computation engine, processors, employing code, computer program product, non-transitory computer readable medium, and memory, to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because are tantamount to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106).
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: computer-implementation, software dashboard graphical user interface, computation engine, processors, employing code, computer program product, non-transitory computer readable medium, and memory. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and it is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of quantifying relationships between goals and pipelines, using adaptive growth pipeline model, and using Sankey diagrams, by way of example, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in any combination, teach, inter alia selecting, using a software dashboard graphical user interface, a predictive growth algorithm from a plurality of predictive growth algorithms, wherein the software dashboard graphical user interface is enabled by a computation engine for pipeline performance management based on one or more processors; developing enterprise-specific revenue goals, employing code executed as a result of using the software dashboard graphical user interface, wherein the enterprise-specific revenue goals are based on the predictive growth algorithm which was selected; disaggregating the enterprise-specific revenue goals into subgoals for portions of the enterprise, using the software dashboard graphical user interface, wherein the portions of the enterprise correspond to input pipelines for the enterprise; evaluating data, employing code executed as a result of using the software dashboard graphical user interface, from the input pipelines corresponding to the subgoals; identifying one or more deficiencies in the data, employing code executed as a result of using the software dashboard graphical user interface, wherein the one or more deficiencies in the data are with respect to accomplishing one or more of the subgoals; and recommending, by the software dashboard graphical user interface, further action to correct the one or more deficiencies to achieve the one or more subgoals. Furthermore, neither the prior art, the nature of the problem, not knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art provides for any predictable or reasonable rationale to combine prior art teachings. The closest prior art of Perry (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2022/0405780) teaches predictive algorithm for goals of an enterprise through modifying enterprise data flows. However, Perry does not teach the particular method of disaggregating goals into subgoals, identifying deficiencies and making recommendations for correcting deficiencies for subgoals of the instant claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AMANDA GURSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7am to 5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMANDA GURSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625