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 .
Response to Arguments
2. The Amendment filed on December 5, 2025, has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendment with no changes to the original claims.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: The nature of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 converge at the integration of a judicial exception into a practical application. The invention implements a number of mathematical principles with data elements covering a wide range of Artificial Intelligence (AI) utilization aspects to provide a unique assessment of the maturity of the AI application. These employ abstract ideas throughout the assessment process. Remaining at issue is the improvement to the technology, a computer, or the a practical application. It is apparent that the invention revolves around software applications employed in the collection, assimilation and processing of data to draw out the maturity assessment. The Examiner does not doubt or question the utility of the assessment and potential insight it may deliver to its users. It is also apparent that this is a case of software applied on a processor to develop a solution. In its present state, the invention does not appear to apply the utility or potential insight from the assessment for and additional purpose; there is no indication of enhancement to a computer or a practical application that employs additional elements to take action or perform a function delivering benefit. In view of these circumstances, the rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 will not be withdrawn.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed
to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-20 are directed to a process (method) and a machine (system), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of identifying marketing and sales opportunities to the Artificial Intelligence sector.
Claim 18 discloses: A process for scoring the maturity of an entity, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), the process comprising the actions of:
accessing data comprising a plurality of records comprising data including job titles, job descriptions, job locations, functional areas of an entity, dates, and entity information,
scanning the records including any metadata that is associated with a record, to identify entities of interest; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
scanning the records including any metadata that is associated with a record, to identify products; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
scanning the records, including any metadata that is associated with a record, to identify locations associated with each entity of interest; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
determining which of the products identified in the scan are products of interest using a product listing, said product listing comprising a listing of products that have been previously identified; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, marketing or sales activities),
tag each record containing a product found to match an product of interest, as a product-containing record; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, marketing or sales activities),
for each entity of interest,
calculating an element that quantifies the level of use of the product at the entity under consideration, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), said component computation comprising,
calculating a product use factor which quantifies the use of products by the entity under consideration in terms of the technologies represented, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, marketing or sales activities),
calculating a percentage of locations associated with the entity under consideration, which are using at least one specific technology, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
calculating a percentage of functional areas of interest across all locations associated with the entity under consideration, which are using at least one specific technology, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, marketing or sales activities), and
calculating the specific component for the entity under consideration, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), said specific component calculation comprising adding the square of the specific product use factor computed for the entity under consideration to the percentage of locations of the entity using at least one specific technology and the percentage of functional areas of interest associated with the entity using at least one specific technology to produce the specific component for the entity under consideration, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, marketing or sales activities),
calculating a data science component that quantifies the level of an entity's data science expertise on a location basis, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), said data science component calculation comprising,
for each of the identified locations associated with the entity under consideration,
identifying the data-oriented roles of individuals working for the entity at that location, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
determining how many different locations associated with the entity under consideration have at least one data-oriented role associated with it, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
dividing the number of locations that have at least one data-oriented role associated with it by the total number of locations associated with the entity to produce a percentage of an entity's locations associated with a data-oriented role, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
determining the total number of each type of data-oriented role associated with the entity under consideration, regardless of location, and identify the data-oriented role having the highest total, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
assigning a prescribed data-oriented role weight corresponding to the identified data-oriented role having the highest total to the entity under consideration, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
multiplying the data-oriented role weight assigned to the entity under consideration by the percentage of the entity's locations associated with a data-oriented role to produce the data science component for the entity under consideration, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
computing a raw data maturity component that quantifies the degree to which the entity is involved in using data technologies, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), said raw data maturity component computation comprising,
generating a list of products in use by the entity under consideration, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, marketing or sales activities),
filtering the list of products in use by the entity under consideration to retain those products that are also found in a data mature products listing that lists the names of products considered to be data mature products and a weight associated with each data mature product indicative of the level of pervasiveness of the product among entities deemed to be data mature, to produce a list of data mature products in use by the entity under consideration, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion marketing or sales activities),
finding the weight associated with each of the data mature products in the list of data mature products using the data mature products listing and sum the discovered weights to produce a data maturity impact score for the entity under consideration, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
determining how many different locations associated with the entity under consideration use at least one data mature product and dividing the number of different locations associated with the entity under consideration that use at least one data mature product by the total number of locations associated with the entity to produce the percentage of locations of the entity under consideration using at least one data mature product, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
multiplying the data maturity impact score computed for the entity under consideration by the percentage of locations of the entity under consideration using at least one data mature product to produce a raw data maturity component for the entity under consideration; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
for each entity of interest, normalizing the raw data maturity component calculated for entity under consideration in view of the raw data maturity components calculated for all the entities of interest to produce the data maturity component for the entity under consideration; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
for each entity of interest that has a non-zero specific component, calculating a specific maturity score by summing the specific component, the data science component, and the data maturity component computed for the entity under consideration to produce the specific maturity score for the entity; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
for each entity of interest that has a zeroed specific component, computing a specific maturity score by summing the data science component and the data maturity component computed for the entity under consideration and taking the square root of the sum to produce a specific maturity score for the entity under consideration; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
generating a specific maturity report comprising a listing of, for each entity of interest, the specific maturity score computed for that entity, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, marketing or sales activities).
Additional limitations employ the process to access the records for the entity under consideration, categorize the records according to content, and determining how many elements of interest are associated with the entity and dividing to produce a product use factor, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, marketing or sales activities – claim 19), and generating a maturity report including a ranking for each entity indicating how high the maturity score is compared to all other entities of interest, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 20).
Each of these claimed limitations employ mental processes involving following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, or commercial interactions involving marketing or sales activities. Claims 1 - 17 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 18-20.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-20 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-20 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as a computer, one or more computing devices to perform process actions, computing devices being in communication with each other via a computer network whenever a plurality of computing devices is used, a database, software, AI products, AI technologies, an
Al maturity scoring computer program having a plurality of sub-programs, an AI maturity scorer and AI maturity scoring computer program, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-20 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as
set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights