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 .
Status of Claims
This action is a Final action on the merits in response to the communications filed on 09/26/2025.
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 2.
Claims 3 and 4 have been cancelled.
Claims 1 – 2, are pending in this Application.
Response to Remarks
Examiner’s Response to Remarks:
Claim Rejections: 35 U.S.C. § 101;
Claim Rejections: 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Examiner’s Response to Claim Rejection: 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant argues the objectives and the means through an invented structure that enables a computerized system for ensuring the objectives can be met are "significantly more" (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 US 208 at 214, (2014)) than the mere enumeration of abstract ideas as argued by Examiner.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, claim 1 is directed to a process, which is a statutory category. However, Applicant’s claim 1 recites abstract ideas. For example, the limitations of amended independent claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites mathematical concepts but for the recitation of a generic computer component such as a computing device and uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Claim 1 particularly recites mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships, where the claim recites a. a phase evaluation process, having a set of phases (401 - 405) to classify a business' development phase for a first population of the plurality of mentees and a first population of mentors, and, each of the phases having a set of pre-selected performance metrics (502) for each of the categories (501) of: business' strategy, business financials, employee team development, leadership, and, sustained execution of the business' strategy, where performance metrics include Table 3): i. for the business' strategy: numeric ratings for clarity of the business strategy, and a numeric estimate of the ability of each employee of the business to communicate the business' vision; ii. for the business' financials: the business' revenue, profit, revenue growth, and, iii. for the employee team development: a numeric ratings for a number of required team positions filled, and a numeric rating for delegation of business responsibilities to team members. Applicant’s amended independent claim 1 merely evaluates data, provides numeric ratings based on the performance of tasks throughout phases of the business. Claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application that uses the judicial exceptions in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception as the claim merely recites an additional element of a computing device programmed. Even with the computing device programmed to prompt mentors and mentees to perform process steps, this is does not recite an inventive concept. The dependent claim encompasses the same abstract ideas as well. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the idea. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 remains.
Examiner’s Response to Claim Rejection: 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Applicant argues the objectives, details, and structure of the claimed invention are now more clearly claimed and are not the same as described in Chenoweth nor Crompton.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has amended claims 1 – 2. A new search was necessary and new art has been applied. The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of the current amendments as set forth below.
Claim Rejections: 35 U.S.C. § 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, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
A business mentoring process used by an organizer to manage a plurality of mentors, each assigned a plurality of mentees, the business mentoring process encoded and including:
a. a phase evaluation process, having a set of phases (401 - 405) to classify a business' development phase for a first population of the plurality of mentees and a first population of mentors, and, each of the phases having a set of pre-selected performance metrics (502) for each of the categories (501) of: business' strategy, business financials, employee team development, leadership, and, sustained execution of the business' strategy, where performance metrics include Table 3):
i. for the business' strategy: numeric ratings for clarity of the business strategy, and a numeric estimate of the ability of each employee of the business to communicate the business' vision
ii. for the business' financials: the business' revenue, profit, revenue growth, and,
iii. for the employee team development: a numeric ratings for a number of required team positions filled, and a numeric rating for delegation of business responsibilities to team members, and,
iv. for leadership: numeric ratings for procedures for handling conflict, work/life balance, and, for sustained execution of the business strategy: numeric ratings for time management, documented business systems and procedures, and meeting business deadlines, and, a narrative description for each of the phases (table 2), and,
b. a set of preselected tasks, and a library of resources (1102 – 1104), known to produce improvements in each of the performance metrics and categories, and when the preselected tasks are executed by a mentee business, to move the mentee business from a first of the phases to a second of the phases;
c. and, is programmed (900) prompt the first population of the plurality of mentors and the first population of the plurality of mentees to perform process steps that include the 1. the phase evaluation process (905), 2. evaluating the metrics (906), 3. selecting
d. and wherein the set of preselected tasks and the library of resources are updated, for a second population of mentees and a second population of mentors to minimize the measured length of time.
Claim 1 under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites certain methods of organizing human activity where the claim particularly recites managing relationships or interactions, as we have for example a phase evaluation process, having a set of phases (401 – 405) to classify a business’ development phase for a first population of the plurality of mentees and a first population of mentors, and, each of the phases having a set of pre-selected performance metrics (502) for each of the categories (501) of: business' strategy, business financials, employee team development, leadership, and, sustained execution of the business' strategy, where performance metrics include Table 3): i. for the business' strategy: numeric ratings for clarity of the business strategy, and a numeric estimate of the ability of each employee of the business to communicate the business' vision ii. for the business' financials: the business' revenue, profit, revenue growth, and, iii. for the employee team development: a numeric ratings for a number of required team positions filled, and a numeric rating for delegation of business responsibilities to team members, and, iv. for leadership: numeric ratings for procedures for handling conflict, work/life balance, and, for sustained execution of the business strategy: numeric ratings for time management, documented business systems and procedures, and meeting business deadlines, and, v. a narrative description for each of the phases (table 2), and, b. a set of preselected tasks, and a library of resources (1102 – 1104), known to produce improvements in each of the performance metrics and categories, and when the preselected tasks are executed by a mentee business, to move the mentee business from a first of the phases to a second of the phases, and, c. is programmed (900) prompt the first population of the plurality of mentors and the first population of the plurality of mentees to perform process steps that include the 1. the phase evaluation process (905), 2. evaluating the metrics (906), 3. selecting
Applicant’s claim 1 recites mathematical concepts and particularly, mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships. For example, a phase evaluation process, having a set of phases (401 – 405) to classify a business’ development phase for a first population of the plurality of mentees and a first population of mentors, and, each of the phases having a set of pre-selected performance metrics (502) for each of the categories (501) of: business' strategy, business financials, employee team development, leadership, and, sustained execution of the business' strategy, where performance metrics include Table 3): i. for the business' strategy: numeric ratings for clarity of the business strategy, and a numeric estimate of the ability of each employee of the business to communicate the business' vision ii. for the business' financials: the business' revenue, profit, revenue growth, and, iii. for the employee team development: a numeric ratings for a number of required team positions filled, and a numeric rating for delegation of business responsibilities to team members, and, iv. for leadership: numeric ratings for procedures for handling conflict, work/life balance, and, for sustained execution of the business strategy: numeric ratings for time management, documented business systems and procedures, and meeting business deadlines, and, v. a narrative description for each of the phases (table 2), and, b. a set of preselected tasks, and a library of resources (1102 – 1104), known to produce improvements in each of the performance metrics and categories, and when the preselected tasks are executed by a mentee business, to move the mentee business from a first of the phases to a second of the phases, and, c. is programmed (900) prompt the first population of the plurality of mentors and the first population of the plurality of mentees to perform process steps that include the 1. the phase evaluation process (905), 2. evaluating the metrics (906), 3. selecting the set of preselected tasks (907) , 4. performing the set of preselected tasks and reevaluating the metrics
The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas as well. For instance, claim 2 is directed towards observing the set of preselected tasks further include written scripts to prompt the plurality of mentors. Accordingly the dependent claim further limit the abstract ideas found in the independent claim.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements the business mentoring process encoded on a computing device, and the computing device programmed to prompt. The additional elements of the business mentoring process encoded on a computing device, and the computing device programmed to prompt are considered a generic computer component (see at least Applicant Spec. “Referring to Figure 1”), “a tablet computer” as per Applicant’s Specifications shown here:
“Referring to Figure 1, the system includes process steps 101 that are encoded on a computing device 102. The computing device includes those functions and hardware as are known in the art, including user interface, networking capability and electronic storage. The computing device may include any form from a cellular phone, a tablet computer, personal computer to a distributed large scale computer systems.”
and thus are not practically integrated nor significantly more.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional element “a computing device” is considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions and amount to no more than mere instructions using generic computer components to implement the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Each of the additional limitations are no more than insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., a computing device). The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., a computing device). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract ideas above.
Dependent claim 2 when analyzed individually and in combination is also held to be ineligible for the same reasons above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim when considered individually and as an ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually add nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1 – 2, are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections: 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claims 1 – 2, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chenoweth, Kathi Lynn et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/028,2576) hereinafter “Chenowith” in view of Crompton, Bernadette. The effect of business coaching and mentoring on small-to-medium enterprise performance and growth. Diss. RMIT University, (2012) hereinafter “Crompton” in view of Travis, Karma S. (U.S. Publication No. 2004/0088177) hereinafter “Travis” in view of Kuhn, Larry (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0130512) hereinafter “Kuhn”.
Claim 1 recites:
A business mentoring process used by an organizer to manage a plurality of mentors, each assigned a plurality of mentees, the business mentoring process encoded and including: Chenoweth teaches in Abstract a system and method for facilitating mentoring in an enterprise; Chenoweth teaches in ¶ 0036, assign a mentor to a mentee and vice versa; Chenoweth teaches in ¶ 0039, an administrator managing the matching of mentors and mentees;
b. a set of preselected tasks, and a library of resources (1102 – 1104), known to produce improvements in each of the performance metrics and categories, and when the preselected tasks are executed by a mentee business; Chenoweth teaches in ¶ 0056, Candidate mentors and mentees may employ the user interfaces 52, 54 to search for appropriate mentees and mentors, respectively, and to thereby establish one or more mentoring relationships. Once one or more mentoring relationships are established, the relationship tracking module 36 is adapted to monitor the progress of the relationships. Progress monitoring may include noting when a relationship begins and ends, whether predetermined tasks have been completed, what performance ratings mentors have assigned to mentees; Chenoweth teaches in ¶ 0066, A mentor may rate a particular mentee by selecting a rate-mentee user interface control 102. Selection of the rate-mentee user interface control 102 may activate another dialog box or user interface display screen, whereby a mentor may grade or otherwise provide a performance measurement or indication pertaining to a particular mentee. For example, if a mentee completes an assigned task to the mentor's satisfaction, the mentor may provide an appropriate grade for the mentee's performance by selecting the rate-mentee user interface control 102 and entering appropriate scores or other parameters;
d. and wherein the set of preselected tasks, and the library of resources are updated, to minimize the measured length of time; Chenoweth teaches in ¶ 0056, Candidate mentors and mentees may employ the user interfaces 52, 54 to search for appropriate mentees and mentors, respectively, and to thereby establish one or more mentoring relationships. Once one or more mentoring relationships are established, the relationship tracking module 36 is adapted to monitor the progress of the relationships. Progress monitoring may include noting when a relationship begins and ends, whether predetermined tasks have been completed, what performance ratings mentors have assigned to mentees, and so on. Exact details as to what aspects of a mentoring relationship are tracked are implementation specific and may vary depending upon the needs of a given implementation. Chenoweth teaches in ¶ 0068, an activity stream 92, which may be implemented via a blog mechanism or other activity-stream mechanism, may be employed by mentors and mentees to provide updates as to what tasks they are currently working on; to provide other notes, and so on. Chenoweth teaches in ¶ 0077, for example, the connections area 134 illustrates an example mentor connection 138 and associated time-remaining indicator 140. The time-remaining indicator 140 may indicate how much time remaining that the mentor associated with the mentor indication 138 has available to provide mentoring services. The define-availability user option 148 may enable a candidate mentee or existing mentee to indicate times at which the mentee is available to be mentored;
While Chenoweth teaches matching mentors and mentees, storage, sales team, financial resources, estimating parameters, improving parameters, tracking and monitoring performance metrics, Chenoweth does not explicitly teach strategy, analyzing problems, leadership, nor business vision. However, Crompton teaches the following:
i. for the business' strategy: numeric ratings for clarity of the business strategy, and a numeric estimate of the ability of each employee of the business to communicate the business' vision; Crompton teaches in Appendix 5.2, pg. 238, 16. Main focus of your business coaching sessions was on: (a) Vision, strategy, goals, environment rated from 1 to 7; Crompton teaches in Appendix 5.3, pg. 239, 4. To what extent were you satisfied with your business coaching, (b) The delivery method of your session rated from 1 to 7 and is likened to a numeric estimate of the ability of each member of the employee team to communicate the business’ vision;
ii. for the business' financials: the business' revenue, profit, revenue growth, and; Crompton teaches in Procedures and Measures pg. xxi, ¶ 1, Firm performance is measured according to average percentage revenue growth over four consecutive financial periods and is likened to revenue growth; Crompton teaches in Business Coaching Outcome Measurement pg. 150, ¶ 3, measuring with profits; Crompton teaches in Business Coaching Focus pg. 51, ¶ 1, measuring with revenue turnover; Crompton teaches in Table 5.3 Start-up Firm Demographics pg. 96, where variable revenue turnover is measured with statistics displayed;
iv. for leadership: numeric ratings for procedures for handling conflict, work/life balance; Crompton teaches in Appendix 5.2, ¶ 16, People (e.g., leadership) rating from 1 to 7; Crompton teaches in Appendix 5.3, Part Three: Business Coaching Rating, ¶ 1, (c)Counsellor, for example rating analyzed problems where rating analyzing problems may be likened to numeric ratings for procedures for handling conflict, work/life balance; Crompton teaches in Appendix 5.3, ¶ 4. to what extent were you satisfied with your business coaching (a) the period/length of your sessions rated from 1 to 7 and is likened to numeric ratings for time management;
a narrative description for each of the phases (table 2), and; Crompton teaches in Table 6.11 Confirmatory Factor Analysis where constructs are explained in a narrative and is likened to a narrative description;
to move the mentee business from a first of the phases to a second of the phases; Crompton teaches in Figure 2.1. Firm stages of growth from Stage I to Stage V and influencing factors;
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a system and method for facilitating mentoring in an enterprise of Chenoweth with investigating relationships between business coaching, entrepreneur characteristics, and small-to-medium enterprise (SME) performance and growth of Crompton to assist businesses with designing studies when researching the relationships between business coaching and entrepreneurs (Crompton, Study 1 – Study 4, pp. xvii – xxv).
While Chenoweth teaches matching mentors and mentees, storage, sales team, financial resources, estimating parameters, improving parameters, tracking and monitoring performance metrics, and Crompton teaches strategy, analyzing problems, leadership, and business vision, neither Chenoweth nor Crompton explicitly teach meeting business deadlines, repeating steps nor document business objectives, however, Travis teaches the following:
c. and, is programmed (900) prompt the first population of the plurality of mentors and the first population of the plurality of mentees to perform process steps that include the 1. the phase evaluation process (905), 2. evaluating the metrics (906), 3. selecting teaches in ¶ 0051, Fig. 1, therefore, illustrates a number of the basic concepts of the employee performance management process 10 of the present invention. In essence, employee performance management process 10 includes evaluation phase 12, which serves, through developmental steps 14, as the basis for planning phase 16. Evaluation phase 12 involves the steps of performing employee assessments, grouping employees consistent with the assessments, and measuring prior performance against prior plans, if any have been established. Planning phase 16 entails establishing, through the system of the present invention, both business objectives and learning objectives reflective of development steps 14. Travis further teaches in ¶ 0052, In response to planning phase 16, employees and leaders act through various steps 18 of employee performance management process 10 until review phase 20. Review phase 20 employs the system and steps of the present invention for providing employee feedback, coaching discussions from leaders to employees, as well as generating for the employees important progress and status information and reports. From review process 20, both employees and leaders develop the ability to undergo improvement steps 22 leading to evaluations for continually employee performance. Chenoweth teaches above performing predetermined tasks; Travis teaches in claim 4, the steps of: generating a template-based evaluation records comprising a predetermined set of evaluation records for documenting personnel performance over defined intervals of a performance period, wherein each of said predetermine set of evaluation records relates to a subset of individuals of said organizational personnel generating a template-based future performance plan with reference to any existing prior ones of said predetermined set of evaluation records for said a subset of individuals, said template-based future performance plan comprising a plurality of objectives relating to personnel performance standards; and reviewing at approximately the end of said defined intervals of said performance period the progress of selected ones of said at least a subset of individuals referring to said template-based future performance plan; Crompton teaches from above move the mentee’s business from a first of the phases to a second of the phases.
for sustained execution of the business strategy: numeric ratings for time management, documented business systems and procedures, and meeting business deadlines, and; there is no support in Applicant’s Spec. for documented business systems, as Applicant’s Spec. recites referring to Figure 9, business mentoring system Travis teaches in ¶ 0008, a performance management method and system for evaluating, planning, and reviewing employee performance; the system, including flexible tools for assessing and grouping, includes means for evaluating performance of employee. For the method and system further include steps for planning the employee performance. The system and method of the present invention further includes means for reviewing employee performance for ensuring optimal achievement relative to stated performance objectives. where management system is likened to structured management system; Travis teaches in ¶ 0101, the present invention therefore permits the user to document business objectives and learning objectives for an upcoming assessment period. Business objectives may be viewed as what the employer needs to accomplish to drive business and/or client results organizational effectiveness) and is likened to documented business systems; Travis teaches in ¶ 0105, effective objectives with an established and specific deadline;
for a second population of mentees and a second population of mentors; Travis teaches in ¶ 0007, an employee performance management method and system are provided that substantially eliminate or reduce the disadvantages and problems associated with prior employee appraisal and performance management systems and processes. Travis teaches in ¶ 0016, technical advantage includes facilitating active coaching and providing timely feedback; Travis teaches in ¶ 0129, The methods and system of present invention are divided into three phases of activity that occur throughout the year. In the performance-planning phase, the first phase leaders will develop or clarify organization and team goals. The employee can help prepare objectives to measure his contributions, performance, and improvement as part of your overall performance plan. Travis teaches in ¶ 0130, the second phase leaders monitor performance progress and have regular discussions with the employee about his performance.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a system and method for facilitating mentoring in an enterprise of Chenoweth and investigating relationships between business coaching, entrepreneur characteristics, and small-to-medium enterprise (SME) performance and growth of Crompton with an employee performance management method and system for the measuring, differentiating, planning, and overall managing of employee performance within a company or organization of Travis to assist businesses with setting objectives and establishing deadlines. (Travis, Spec. ¶ 0105).
While Chenoweth teaches matching mentors and mentees, storage, sales team, financial resources, estimating parameters, improving parameters, tracking and monitoring performance metrics; Crompton teaches strategy, analyzing problems, leadership, business stages of growth, and business vision; and Travis teaches meeting business deadlines, repeating steps nor document business objectives; and all art relates via coaching, mentoring, and developing the business, leaders, and employees, neither Chenoweth, Crompton, nor Travis explicitly teaches both evaluating the business and CEO with numeric weights, however, Kuhn teaches the following:
a. a phase evaluation process, having a set of phases (401 - 405) to classify a business' development phase for a first population of the plurality of mentees and a first population of mentors, and, each of the phases having a set of pre-selected performance metrics (502) for each of the categories (501) of: business' strategy, business financials, employee team development, leadership, and, sustained execution of the business' strategy, where performance metrics include Table 3): Kuhn teaches in ¶ 0002, post-employment assessment, leadership development, and executive coaching products and services. Kuhn teaches in ¶ 0010, the process of pre-hiring and post-hiring leadership development activities further includes assessing candidates using evaluative criteria derived from the Competency Models and/or Culture Fit Models; Kuhn teaches in ¶ 0011, process of pre-hiring and post-hiring leadership development activities further includes assessing candidates using evaluative criteria derived from the Competency Models and/or Culture Fit Models. Kuhn teaches in ¶ 0064, a graphical representation of an embodiment of an algorithm (400) used in the system and method (10, 20) for pre-hiring and post-hiring leadership development shows that the system and method (10, 20) guides Super-users and/or Leads or Users through a step-by-step process (30) to create positions and corresponding Competency Models (CMs) within the Aspire platform. Prior to assessing candidates, the system and method (10, 20) helps clients first assess the position for which the candidate is going to be hired. The system and method (10, 20) directs Users to create positions, to design initial position competency models, to electronically invite Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to weigh in with their preferences, and to finalize the CM prior to assessing the first Candidate. Kuhn teaches in ¶ 0066, the position creation window (402) in FIG. 3, once additional job information is completed on the Position Profile (406), the system and method (10, 20) prompts the User to Create Position. In Step 1 of Creating a Position (408) the system and method (10, 20) asks the organization to upload a job description. This document typically lists a Job Summary, Minimum Requirements, Essential Functions, and Specific Performance Expectations for selected candidates who may be hired. In Step 2 of Creating a Position (410) the system and method (10, 20) asks the User to build a Competency Model (CM). A CM within the framework of the system and method (10, 20) lists weighted factors that become the evaluative criteria or target against which a candidate's suitability is measured and is likened to . In this way, the Aspire Platform (100) of the system and method (10, 20) enables hiring managers and HR personnel to custom-design CM's to calculate the level of Competency Fit between specified job requirements and a candidate's skills, knowledge, and aptitudes. The CM of the system and method (10, 20) also facilitates the accurate assessment of Culture Fit by exploring alignment factors relevant to preferred personality characteristics and values within the work environment, and a Candidate's self-reported personality traits and value-drivers. Kuhn teaches in ¶ 0088, analyzing whether the candidate leader is a good fit; Kuhn teaches in ¶¶ 0094 – 0095, conducting a job analysis of essential functions of the leader and a competency model that includes specific competencies such as Job Details Competency (438A), Essential Functions Competency (438B), Knowledge Competency (438C), General Competency (438D), Skills Competency (438E), Traits Competency (438F), and/or Values Competency (438G), as non-limiting examples. Kuhn teaches in ¶ 0119, an Aspire Leadership Alignment Platform with periodic performance evaluations and continuous feedback; Kuhn teaches in ¶ 0130, Leader Alignment Objectives (626) and Leader Development Objectives; Kuhn teaches in Essential Functions (438B), projects – support the CEO and the organization’s senior leaders with a numeric weight of 73; Kuhn teaches in ¶ 0136 – 0137, Aspire 360 Feedback Tools, individuals outside of the company, such as an executive coach and/or past supervisors, may be invited to provide feedback. Their perspectives may be factored into or excluded from reporting calculations.
iii. for the employee team development: a numeric ratings for a number of required team positions filled, and a numeric rating for delegation of business responsibilities to team members, and; Kuhn teaches in Competency (438D) a description of cooperative teamwork with a numeric weight of 50, and a description of reliability where the competency encompasses punctuality, conscientiousness, and adherence or compliance to policies, rules, procedures, and legal regulations (e.g., health and safety, security, data protection, etc.) within the organization. An individual with this competency attends meetings on time, follows instructions without unnecessarily challenging authority, possesses a strong work ethic, and follows through on assigned tasks. He or she rarely misses appointments or fails to carry out assigned responsibilities, informing others, and a category for a weighted metric of 50; Kuhn teaches in Essential Functions (438B), with documented business systems meetings, assisting CEO in preparation and facilitation of key meetings and a numeric weight of 75, communication – draft materials, communication, and speaking points for the CEO with a numeric weight of 72.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a system and method for facilitating mentoring in an enterprise of Chenoweth and investigating relationships between business coaching, entrepreneur characteristics, and small-to-medium enterprise (SME) performance and growth of Crompton and an employee performance management method and system for the measuring, differentiating, planning, and overall managing of employee performance within a company or organization of Travis with a system and method for pre-hiring and post-hiring leadership development of Kuhn to assist businesses with providing coaching therapists and executive coaches to support businesses and leaders engaged in assessment and leadership development activities (Kuhn, Spec. ¶ 0012).
Claim 2:
Chenoweth, Crompton, Travis, and Kuhn teach claim 1. Crompton further teaches the following:
The business mentoring process of claim 1 wherein the set of preselected tasks further include written scripts to prompt the plurality of mentors; Crompton teaches in Procedure and Measures, ¶ 1, p. 99, providing instructions for the mentors to follow with questionnaires where providing instructions for mentors may be likened to include written scripts to prompt the plurality of mentors.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a system and method for facilitating mentoring in an enterprise of Chenoweth and an employee performance management method and system for the measuring, differentiating, planning, and overall managing of employee performance within a company or organization of Travis and a system and method for pre-hiring and post-hiring leadership development of Kuhn with investigating relationships between business coaching, entrepreneur characteristics, and small-to-medium enterprise (SME) performance and growth of Crompton to assist businesses with designing studies when researching the relationships between business coaching and entrepreneurs (Crompton, Study 1 – Study 4, pp. xvii – xxv).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Note: these are additional references found but not used.
- Reference Wilson, Mark (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0061178) discloses a very early stage business development system and method is implemented within an abbreviated period of time to produce an objective decision point of whether or not to proceed to the next stage of business formation.
- Reference Aiyer, Vivek (U.S. Publication 2020/0027052) discloses a system for generating automatic workflows, provisioning learning and skilling pathways based on dynamically evaluating the proficiency level of practitioners of any skill set, and producing specific documentation and job information supported by Machine Learning (ML) methodologies and human interaction, extending to the integration of IoT and the mining of unstructured data networks to efficiently address the requirements of job outcomes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank Alston whose telephone number is 703-756-4510. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM Monday - Friday.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737.
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.
/FRANK MAURICE ALSTON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3625
1/08/2026
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625