DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's amendment filed on 12 January 2026. Applicant’s amendment on 12 January 2026 amended Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 14 and 21-23. Currently Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, and 21-23 are pending and have been examined. Claims 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 15-20 have been previously canceled. The Examiner notes that the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 7-8 that the “Revised Step 2A (Prong Two: elements integrate the alleged exception into a practical application). Evaluation under Step 2A, Prong Two requires a determination as to whether the claim as a whole "integrates [a] judicial exception into a practical application ... that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception." Oct. 2019 Update at pg. 11. The 2019 PEG further observes that if the claim "reflect[s] an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application and thus imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception." Oct. 2019 Update at pg. 11 (emphasis added).
Amended claim 1 recites automatically surfacing, via a user interface, a link to an in- application resource in response to detecting, based on monitored telemetry data, that an in- application tool of an enterprise application will increase a productive value associated with usage of the enterprise application above a threshold, where the in-application resource assists the user in locating or using the in-application tool”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the argument the Examiner notes that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is hereby maintained because the claims of the Application are directed to an abstract idea and fail to integrate that abstract idea into a practical application that imposes a meaningful limit on the exception. At Step 2A, Prong One, the independent claims recite, at their core, the abstract idea of monitoring a user's behavior, evaluating whether that behavior reflects a productive value below a threshold, and directing the user to a resource that will increase that productive value steps that collectively constitute a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, and recommendation that a knowledgeable human supervisor could perform by watching an employee interact with a software application, assessing whether the employee was struggling, identifying a tool that would help, and then pointing the employee to that tool. The fact that these steps are performed by a computer using telemetry data in the form of keystrokes and mouse clicks does not remove them from the mental process grouping, because the computer is merely being used as a tool to perform an existing cognitive process, rather than being improved by the claimed invention itself.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because none of the additional elements, individually or in combination, reflect a technological improvement to the enterprise application or to computer technology more broadly. The recitation of monitoring telemetry data in the form of keystrokes and mouse clicks constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity it is merely the collection of data as a precursor to performing the abstract idea, which the courts and the USPTO's guidance have consistently found insufficient to confer eligibility. Similarly, the automatic surfacing of a link via a user interface in response to the detection is nothing more than a generic computer output step that amounts to an instruction to "apply it" on a computer, and the mere automation of delivering a recommendation through a user interface does not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The specification describes the productive value and threshold productive value concepts in broad, functional, and result-oriented terms, focusing on the desired outcome of increasing user productivity rather than disclosing any specific technical mechanism by which the computer system itself is improved in its functioning. Critically, the independent claims do not recite the propensity model or any machine learning component the most technically concrete elements of the disclosed invention leaving the independent claims to cover nothing more than the broad idea of proactive resource recommendation in an enterprise software environment, which is precisely the kind of result-oriented claiming that the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, found to be directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, under the Federal Circuit's recent decision in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., cited in the USPTO's August 4, 2025 Memorandum, steps that are merely incidental to automating an abstract idea are not sufficient to confer eligibility, even when implemented in a specific technological environment. Here, the monitoring, detecting, and surfacing steps are each incidental to the automation of an existing business practice the proactive identification and delivery of assistance to an enterprise user who is struggling to utilize a software application and the enterprise application environment in which these steps occur constitutes nothing more than a field-of-use limitation that does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. The Applicant's argument that the claims reflect a technological improvement because they deliver resources within the context of the enterprise application, without requiring the user to leave the application and search independently, describes an improvement to the user experience and to a business process rather than an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to computer technology itself, and such improvements to user convenience or workflow efficiency are insufficient to establish patent eligibility under the prevailing legal framework. For all of these reasons, the claims have not been shown to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, the rejection is therefore maintained.
The Applicant argues on page(s) 8 that “the claimed approach provides a technical solution in the field of enterprise systems (aka Enterprise Software or Enterprise Applications) by making in-application tools more intuitive for users to locate and use when performing enterprise-related tasks. More specifically, modern enterprise applications are technological products (i.e., tools) that allow enterprise users to perform enterprise-related tasks. One challenge is that these tools are not very intuitive and require high levels of familiarity and skill in order to be used effectively. The claimed approach provides a technical solution to this underlying problem by automatically surfacing in- application resources to assist users in locating or using in-application tools during their normal workflow. This in-turn makes the enterprise application more intuitive and (by extension) a more effective technological product/tool”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the argument the Examiner notes that the rejection under 101 Alice rejection is hereby maintained notwithstanding Applicant's argument that the claimed approach provides a technical solution to the problem of enterprise application intuitiveness, because recharacterizing a user experience improvement as a technical solution does not transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. While Applicant frames the problem as one of enterprise application intuitiveness arguing that modern enterprise applications are not intuitive and require high levels of familiarity and skill the claimed solution to that problem is not a technical one but rather an organizational and behavioral one: monitor what the user is doing, evaluate whether the user needs help, and tell the user where to find help. This is precisely the kind of improvement to user convenience and workflow efficiency that the courts and the USPTO have consistently distinguished from a true technological improvement to computer functionality, and the mere fact that the solution is implemented within an enterprise software environment does not elevate it to a technological improvement under the applicable legal framework.
Applicant's argument that automatically surfacing in-application resources during a user's normal workflow makes the enterprise application more intuitive and therefore a more effective technological product is unpersuasive because it conflates an improvement to the user's experience of the technology with an improvement to the technology itself. Under the Federal Circuit's precedent in Alice and its progeny, and as reinforced by Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., the relevant inquiry is whether the claims improve the functioning of the computer or the technology itself, not whether they improve how effectively a human user can interact with or utilize that technology. An enterprise application that surfaces a link to a resource in response to detected telemetry data functions in the same basic manner as an enterprise application that does not the underlying computer technology is not improved, the application itself is not made to operate more efficiently or more capably, and no new technical capability is added to the computer system. Rather, the claims simply direct the computer to perform the abstract cognitive task of recommending a resource to a user who appears to need help, which is a task that a human supervisor could perform without any computer assistance whatsoever.
Furthermore, Applicant's characterization of enterprise applications as technological products or tools does not itself establish that an improvement to the intuitiveness of those applications constitutes a technological improvement within the meaning of the eligibility framework. The specification describes the productive value threshold, the detection of productive state attributes, and the surfacing of resources in broadly functional terms that focus on the desired outcome increased user productivity rather than on any specific technical mechanism by which the computer system is structurally or functionally improved. As the August 4, 2025 USPTO Memorandum instructs, and as the precedential decision in Ex Parte Desjardins confirms, the specification must describe the invention such that an improvement to technology or a technical field would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, and that improvement must be reflected in the claims themselves. Here, the independent claims recite no specific technical mechanism no machine learning model, no propensity model, no particular algorithmic structure that would constitute a technological improvement to the enterprise application or to computer technology, and the broadly functional recitation of monitoring telemetry data, detecting a threshold condition, and surfacing a link amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of proactive user assistance on a generic computer system. For all of these reasons, Applicant's argument that the claims provide a technical solution in the field of enterprise systems is insufficient to overcome the rejection, therefore the rejection is maintained.
The Applicant argues on page(s) 8-10 that “"Business Challenge" The Examiner contends that the claimed approach addresses a business efficiency problem. See Office Action, pp. 3-4. Applicant notes that a "technical solution" that addresses a "business challenge" nevertheless qualifies under Step 2A, Prong Two provided that the business challenge is necessarily rooted in computer technology.
In DDR Holdings, the Federal Circuit held that claims directed at solving the business challenge of retaining visitors on a website were patent eligible, noting that "although the claims address a business challenge (retaining website visitors), it is a challenge particular to the Internet." DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2014)1, p. 13. The Federal Circuit went on to define a "technical solution" as "[a] solution [that] is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." Id. at p. 20.
Like DDR Holdings, the claimed approach provides a "technical solution" (i.e., making in-application tools more intuitive) that addresses a "business challenge arising specifically in the realm of computer networks" (e.g., improving employee efficiency during the usage of an enterprise application to perform an enterprise-related task).
Stated differently, the claimed approach provides a "technical solution" by virtue of reciting a series of steps (e.g., monitoring telemetry data, detecting when an in-application resource will increase productivity above a threshold, automatically surfacing a link to the in- application resource, etc.) that make in-application tools of the enterprise application more intuitive for enterprise users to use and find.
In doing so, the claimed approach addresses the business challenge of improving employee efficiency during usage of an enterprise application to perform an enterprise application task -- a challenge that is "necessarily rooted in a computer technology" because the challenge arises specifically within the realm of the enterprise employee's usage of the enterprise application to perform the enterprise-related task. In this sense, the claimed solution serves to address the challenge of employee efficiency only in the realm of using enterprise applications to perform enterprise-related tasks -- it would not (for example) improve employee efficiency in other contexts, such as cleaning the break room. The claimed approach therefore improves the functioning of the enterprise application (i.e., the computer-related technology) itself- as opposed to improving the abstract idea of organizing human activity (as alleged during the telephone interview).
For these reasons, amended claim 1 reflects a technical improvement in the field of enterprise systems and, by extension, serves to integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. For these reasons, amended claim 1 is patent- eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent claims 9 and 21 recite features similar to the above- discussed features of independent claim 1, and are likewise also patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests the rejection of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 be withdrawn”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is hereby maintained notwithstanding Applicant's reliance on DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., because the claims of the instant application are distinguishable from the claims at issue in DDR Holdings in a critical and dispositive respect. In DDR Holdings, the Federal Circuit found the claims patent-eligible not merely because they addressed a business challenge arising in the context of computer networks, but because the claims recited a specific technical mechanism that overrode the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink that is, the claims specified how interactions with the Internet were manipulated in a particular way to yield a result that was contrary to the normal operation of Internet technology. The claims in DDR Holdings did not simply instruct a computer to perform an existing process in an online environment; rather, they recited a novel technical architecture that fundamentally altered how the Internet operated in the context of the claimed system. The claims of the present application do not do anything analogous. The independent claims recite monitoring telemetry data, detecting a threshold condition, and surfacing a link via a user interface step that follow the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily associated with enterprise application usage and do not override, alter, or improve the underlying operation of the enterprise application technology itself in any specific technical way.
Applicant's argument that the business challenge of improving employee efficiency during enterprise application usage is "necessarily rooted in computer technology" because it arises specifically within the realm of enterprise application usage is unpersuasive because it conflates the environment in which the problem arises with a technological improvement to that environment. The fact that a problem arises exclusively in the context of computer technology does not automatically render a solution to that problem a technological improvement if it did, virtually any software-implemented method directed at improving user behavior within a computer environment would be patent-eligible, a result that is directly contrary to the holdings of Alice and its progeny. As the Federal Circuit made clear in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., and as the USPTO's August 4, 2025 Memorandum reaffirms, steps that are merely incidental to automating an abstract idea within a technological environment even one specific to computer networks or enterprise software are not sufficient to confer eligibility. The relevant inquiry is not whether the challenge arises in a computer context, but whether the claimed solution improves the computer technology itself, and here the independent claims recite no specific technical mechanism, no particular algorithmic structure, no machine learning component, and no novel technical architecture that would demonstrate such an improvement.
Furthermore, Applicant's characterization of the claimed series of steps monitoring telemetry data, detecting when a resource will increase productivity above a threshold, and automatically surfacing a link as constituting a technical solution that makes in-application tools more intuitive describes an improvement to the user's experience of the technology rather than an improvement to the technology itself, and the intuitiveness of a software application for its users is not a measure of the application's technical functioning. As the August 4, 2025 USPTO Memorandum instructs, and as confirmed by the precedential decision in Ex Parte Desjardins, the specification must describe the invention such that a technological improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, and that improvement must be reflected in the claims themselves through the specific components or steps that provide the improvement. The independent claims of the present application are devoid of the propensity model, the machine learning techniques, and the property graph-based data extraction that are described in the specification as the mechanisms by which the system achieves its functionality, and without those technically concrete limitations, the independent claims cover nothing more than the abstract idea of proactively recommending resources to a struggling user an idea that is not rendered patent-eligible merely because it is implemented within an enterprise software environment or because the problem it addresses would not arise in non-computer contexts such as, as Applicant notes, cleaning a break room. For all of these reasons, Applicant's reliance on DDR Holdings does not overcome the rejection is therefore maintained.
The remaining Applicant's arguments filed 12 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
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, 2, 6, 7, 9,10, 14, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 9,10, 14, and 21-23 as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of delivering relevant resources during the use of an enterprise system without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (from the January 2019 §101 Examination Guidelines), claim(s) (1, 2, 6 and 7) is/are directed to a method, claim(s) (, 10, and 14) is/ are directed to a computer readable medium, and claims(s) (21, 22, and 23) is/are directed to an application server and therefore the claims recites a series of steps and, therefore the claims are viewed as falling in statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity). Specifically, the independent claims 1, 9, and 21 recite as drafted, the claim recites the limitation of delivering relevant resources during the execution of an enterprise application which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for a processor language, the claim encompasses the user manually determining relevant resources. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This limitation is a mental process. While the Guidance provides that claims do not recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (GPS position calculation, network monitoring, data encryption for communication, rendering images. However with regard to the instant application the Examiner has reviewed the disclosure and determined that the underlying claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of a pen and paper, and thus it is viewed that the applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, 2) in a computer environment or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, and therefore is considered to recite a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2
Specifically, the determined judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and additionally that data executing, causing, detecting and providing steps required to use the determining do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity (including post solution activity).
The claim recites the additional element(s): that a processor is used to perform both the determining steps. The processor in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (delivering relevant resources during the use of an enterprise system). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional element(s): executing an enterprise application, displaying a user interface, receiving a user input, monitoring telemetry data, detecting an increase, and surfacing the resource performs the determining steps. The executing, displaying, receiving, monitoring, detecting, and surfacing the resource steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of managing data for use in the determining steps), and amounts to mere data usage, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor that performs the determining steps are also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the determining steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor).
For further clarification the Examiner points out that the claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, and 21-23 recite(s) executing an enterprise application, displaying a user interface, determining user attributes, receiving a user input, monitoring telemetry data, detecting increase in productivity, surfacing a link which are viewed as an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of a computer for executing, displaying, determining, receiving, monitoring, and detecting, determining, and providing which is the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea (delivering relevant resources during the use of an enterprise system) in the manner of “apply it”.
Thus, the claims recites an abstract idea directed to a mental process (i.e. to delivering relevant resources during the use of an enterprise systems). Using a computer to executing, causing, determining, detecting, determining, and providing the data resulting from this kind of mental process merely implements the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it”.
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’.
The dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies.
Claims 7, 14, and 23 recite limitations which further limit the claimed analysis of data.
Claims 2, 6, 10, and 22 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed insignificantly extra solution activity.
Using a computer to perform the data processing as claimed is merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it” and does not provide significantly more. Additionally with respect to the Berkheimer the Examiner points out that the steps of the claim are viewed to be to nothing more than spell out what it means to apply it on a computer and cannot confer patent-eligibility as there are no additional limitations beyond applying an abstract idea, restricted to a computer. As the claims are merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “Apply It” the need for a Berkheimer analysis does not apply and is not required. With respect to the currently filed claims the implementing steps can be found in Thomas which discloses how the claims alone and in combination are viewed to be well understood, routine and conventional based on point 3 of the Berkheimer memo and subsequent evidence, complying with and providing evidence.
No Claims have been identified to recite limitations directed to claim language viewed non-functional data labels.
Thus, the problem the claimed invention is directed to answering the question based on delivering relevant resources during the use of an enterprise systems. This is not a technical or technological problem but is rather in the realm of enterprise management and therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. This is the case because in order for the claims to be viewed as significantly more the claims must incorporate the integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly. Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more. Additionally, another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. "[T]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines. All together the above analysis shows there is not improvement in computer functionality, or improvement to any other technology or technical field. The claim is ineligible.
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’. Specifically, the dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies of the independent claims.
With respect to the legal concept of prima facie case being a procedural tool of patent examination, which allocates the burdens going forward between the examiner and the applicant. MPEP § 2106.07 discusses the requirements of a prima facie case of ineligibility. In particular, the initial burden was on the Examiner and believed to be properly provided as to explain why the claim(s) are ineligible for patenting because of the above provided rejection which clearly and specifically points out in accordance with properly providing the requirement satisfying the initial burden of proof based on the Guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the burden now shifts to the applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0114821 A1) (hereafter Thomas) om view of Ibrahim et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0235838 A1) in further view of Chauhan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0145385 A1) (hereafter Chauhan).
Referring to Claim 1, Thomas teaches a method comprising.
wherein the method is implemented via a computing system comprising a processor (see; par. [0385] of Thomas teaches a processor and memory)
executing, an enterprise application on a remote computing system operated by an enterprise user of an enterprise (see; par. [0279] of Thomas teaches utilizing a network to allow for remote computing resources as part of an enterprise application (i.e. giving access to a user of the enterprise system access)).
displaying a user interface on the remote computing system during the execution of the enterprise application (see; par. [0279] of Thomas teaches the use of remote computing to have access to an enterprise application, par. [0084] where the information is displayed on a graphic user interface for interaction with the user (i.e. surfacing)).
determining enterprise user attributes of the enterprise user based on enterprise-level data corresponding to the enterprise user and the enterprise (see; par. [0087] of Thomas teaches determining if a user of the enterprise system has the proper identity, profile, roles, and privileges (i.e. attributes)).
Thomas does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Ibrahim teaches detecting, based on the monitored telemetry data, that an in-application tool of the enterprise application will increase a productive value associated with the usage of the enterprise application to perform the enterprise-related task above a threshold productive value prior to the enterprise user attempting to locate or use the in-application tool (see; par. [0010] of Ibrahim teaches productivity of the enterprise is increased to a desired level (i.e. threshold), par. [0007]-[0010] by the monitoring of task related events (i.e. telemetry), par. [0030] which is based on task related events provide information on a customized interface with respect to each enterprise (i.e. on an in-application tool)), and
The Examiner notes that Thomas teaches similar to the instant application teaches analyzing threat data by analyzing data and providing relevant data. Specifically, Thomas discloses the analysis of threat management data in an enterprise network and update data as necessary it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Ibrahim teaches enabling task aggregation in an enterprise environment and as it is comparable in certain respects to Thomas which analyzing threat data by analyzing data and providing relevant data as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Thomas discloses the analysis of threat management data in an enterprise network and update data as necessary. However, Thomas fails to disclose detecting, based on the monitored telemetry data, that an in-application tool of the enterprise application will increase a productive value associated with the usage of the enterprise application to perform the enterprise-related task above a threshold productive value prior to the enterprise user attempting to locate or use the in-application tool.
Ibrahim discloses detecting, based on the monitored telemetry data, that an in-application tool of the enterprise application will increase a productive value associated with the usage of the enterprise application to perform the enterprise-related task above a threshold productive value prior to the enterprise user attempting to locate or use the in-application tool.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Thomas detecting, based on the monitored telemetry data, that an in-application tool of the enterprise application will increase a productive value associated with the usage of the enterprise application to perform the enterprise-related task above a threshold productive value prior to the enterprise user attempting to locate or use the in-application tool as taught by Ibrahim since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Thomas, and Ibrahim teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to provide relevant resources in an enterprise system and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Thomas in view of Ibrahim does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Chauhan teaches the enterprise application supports performance of an enterprise-related task using enterprise-level data provided, or otherwise maintained, by an enterprise (see; par. [0058] of Chauhan teaches a gateway that includes the performance enhancement of enterprise resources using an enterprise system), and
detecting, via the user interface, a usage of the enterprise application by the enterprise user to perform the enterprise-related task (see; par. [0158] of Chauhan teaches monitoring a user’s behavior working on networked application on an enterprise system as the worker’s behavior is monitored (i.e. performing related tasks)) and
monitoring telemetry data during the usage of the enterprise application to perform the enterprise-related task, wherein the monitored telemetry data includes at least one of keystrokes or mouse clicks input by the enterprise user (see; par. [0159] of Chauhan teaches a machine learning application that monitors inputs from user interactions and includes the input of devices (i.e. telemetry data)),
automatically surfacing, without prompting by the enterprise user, a link to an in-application resource via the user interface in response to detecting that the in-application tool will increase the productive value above the threshold productive value, the in-application resource assisting the enterprise user in locating or using the in-application tool of the enterprise application during the usage of the enterprise application to perform the enterprise-related task, wherein the link to the in-application resource is automatically surfaced prior to the enterprise user attempting to locate or use the in-application tool (see; par. [0158] of Chauhan teaches based on the analysis of a user’s behavior working on a networked application on an enterprise system, predicting the next application based on the user’s behavior that may be needed and pre-launching the application in order to enhance the users experience)),
The Examiner notes that Thomas teaches similar to the instant application teaches analyzing threat data by analyzing data and providing relevant data. Specifically, Thomas discloses the analysis of threat management data in an enterprise network and update data as necessary it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Ibrahim teaches enabling task aggregation in an enterprise environment and as it is comparable in certain respects to Thomas which analyzing threat data by analyzing data and providing relevant data as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Chauhan teaches pre-launching applications based on monitored behavior of a user in order to provide a predicted application to address the need of the user and as it is comparable in certain respects to Thomas and Ibrahim which analyzing threat data by analyzing data and providing relevant data as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Thomas and Ibrahim discloses the analysis of threat management data in an enterprise network and update data as necessary. However, Thomas and Ibrahim fails to disclose the enterprise application supports performance of an enterprise-related task using enterprise-level data provided, or otherwise maintained, by an enterprise, detecting, via the user interface, a usage of the enterprise application by the enterprise user to perform the enterprise-related task, monitoring telemetry data during the usage of the enterprise application to perform the enterprise-related task, wherein the monitored telemetry data includes at least one of keystrokes or mouse clicks input by the enterprise user, and automatically surfacing, without prompting by the enterprise user, a link to an in-application resource via the user interface in response to detecting that the in-application tool will increase the productive value above the threshold productive value, the in-application resource assisting the enterprise user in locating or using the in-application tool of the enterprise application during the usage of the enterprise application to perform the enterprise-related task, wherein the link to the in-application resource is automatically surfaced prior to the enterprise user attempting to locate or use the in-application tool.
Chauhan discloses the enterprise application supports performance of an enterprise-related task using enterprise-level data provided, or otherwise maintained, by an enterprise, detecting, via the user interface, a usage of the enterprise application by the enterprise user to perform the enterprise-related task, monitoring telemetry data during the usage of the enterprise application to perform the enterprise-related task, wherein the monitored telemetry data includes at least one of keystrokes or mouse clicks input by the enterprise user, and automatically surfacing, without prompting by the enterprise user, a link to an in-application resource via the user interface in response to detecting that the in-application tool will increase the productive value above the threshold productive value, the in-application resource assisting the enterprise user in locating or using the in-application tool of the enterprise application during the usage of the enterprise application to perform the enterprise-related task, wherein the link to the in-application resource is automatically surfaced prior to the enterprise user attempting to locate or use the in-application tool.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Thomas and Ibrahim the enterprise application supports performance of an enterprise-related task using enterprise-level data provided, or otherwise maintained, by an enterprise, detecting, via the user interface, a usage of the enterprise application by the enterprise user to perform the enterprise-related task, monitoring telemetry data during the usage of the enterprise application to perform the enterprise-related task, wherein the monitored telemetry data includes at least one of keystrokes or mouse clicks input by the enterprise user, and automatically surfacing, without prompting by the enterprise user, a link to an in-application resource via the user interface in response to detecting that the in-application tool will increase the productive value above the threshold productive value, the in-application resource assisting the enterprise user in locating or using the in-application tool of the enterprise application during the usage of the enterprise application to perform the enterprise-related task, wherein the link to the in-application resource is automatically surfaced prior to the enterprise user attempting to locate or use the in-application tool as taught by Chauhan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Thomas, Ibrahim teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to provide relevant resources in an enterprise system and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 2, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Thomas in view of Ibrahim in further view of Chauhan teaches the method above, Thomas further discloses a method having the limitations of:
storing at least a portion of the enterprise-level data within a property graph (see; par. [0111]-[0113] of Thomas teaches storing enterprise data in an event graph (i.e. property graph) using edges and nodes to store the information).
accessing the enterprise-level data by searching the property graph (see; par. [0113] of Thomas teaches accessing and searching for data in an event graph (i.e. property graph), utilizing he edges and nodes).
Referring to Claim 6, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Thomas in view of Ibrahim in further view of Chauhan teaches the method above, Thomas further discloses a method having the limitations of:
performing the method in real-time or near real-time (see; par. [0158] of Thomas teaches a real time evaluation of the information stream monitoring activities of the user in an enterprise system).
Referring to Claim 9, Thomas in view of Ibrahim in further view of Chauhan teaches a computer-readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions. Claim 9 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 9 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1.
Referring to Claim 10, see discussion of claim 9 above, while Thomas in view of Ibrahim in further view of Chauhan teaches a computer-readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions above Claim 10 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 2, Claim 10 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 2.
Referring to Claim 21, Thomas in view of Ibrahim in further view of Chauhan teaches a system. Claim 21 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 21 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1, except for the following noted exception;
a processor… a memory (see; par. [0062] memory as part of the processor utilizing a network).
Referring to Claim 22, see discussion of claim 21 above, while Thomas in view of Ibrahim in further view of Chauhan teaches a system instructions above Claim 22 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 2, Claim 22 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 2.
Claim(s) 7, 14, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0114821 A1) (hereafter Thomas) in view of Ibrahim et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0235838 A1) in further view of Moore et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0016557 A1) (hereafter Moore).
Referring to Claim 7, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Thomas in view of Ibrahim in further view of Chauhan teaches the method above, Thomas further discloses a method having the limitations of:
generating the propensity model by applying at least one of a machine learning technique or a heuristic technique to enterprise-level data that span across multiple enterprise users (see; par. [0073] of Thomas teaches generating a model that looks at the action of a user and their behaviors over time (i.e. propensity model) in order to apply machine learning techniques to manage enterprise processes by the user).
Thomas in view of Ibrahim in further view of Chauhan does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Moore teaches the propensity model is relied upon to determine that the in-application tool of the enterprise application will increase the productive above the threshold productive value (see; par. [0103]-[0104] of Moore teaches using a model to provide composition of applications, par. [0104] which is used to increase employee productivity and enterprise service automation).
The Examiner notes that Thomas teaches similar to the instant application teaches analyzing threat data by analyzing data and providing relevant data. Specifically, Thomas discloses the analysis of threat management data in an enterprise network and update data as necessary it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Ibrahim teaches enabling task aggregation in an enterprise environment and as it is comparable in certain respects to Thomas which analyzing threat data by analyzing data and providing relevant data as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Chauhan teaches pre-launching applications based on monitored behavior of a user in order to provide a predicted application to address the need of the user and as it is comparable in certain respects to Thomas and Ibrahim which analyzing threat data by analyzing data and providing relevant data as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Moore teaches enterprise level data and process access and presentation and as it is comparable in certain respects to Thomas, Ibrahim, and Chauhan which analyzing threat data by analyzing data and providing relevant data as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Thomas, Ibrahim, and Chauhan discloses the analysis of threat management data in an enterprise network and update data as necessary. However, Thomas, Ibrahim, and Chauhan fails to disclose the propensity model is relied upon to determine that the in-application tool of the enterprise application will increase the productive above the threshold productive value.
Moore discloses the propensity model is relied upon to determine that the in-application tool of the enterprise application will increase the productive above the threshold productive value.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Thomas, Ibrahim, and Chauhan the propensity model is relied upon to determine that the in-application tool of the enterprise application will increase the productive above the threshold productive value as taught by Moore since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Thomas, Ibrahim, Chauhan and Moore teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to provide relevant resources in an enterprise system and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 14, see discussion of claim 9 above, while Thomas in view of Ibrahim in further view of Chauhan teaches a computer-readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions above Claim 14 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 7, Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 7.
Referring to Claim 23, see discussion of claim 21 above, while Thomas in view of Ibrahim in further view of Chauhan teaches a system instructions above Claim 23 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 7, Claim 23 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 7.
Conclusion
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 STEPHEN S SWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Boswell Beth can be reached at 571 272-6737. 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.
/S.S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3625 /BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights