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 .
Acknowledgments
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Applicant did not file information disclosure statement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Khanna (US10346459B1) in further view of Mishra (US20210097062A1) in further view of Willemain (US20150161545A1) in further view of Messana (US20120271850A1). However, with respect to exemplary claim 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17, 19, and 20 the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality of claim 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17, 19, and 20.
Claims 3 is allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Khanna (US10346459B1) in further view of Mishra (US20210097062A1) in further view of Willemain (US20150161545A1) in further view of Messana (US20120271850A1) in further view of Vadlamudi (20200081969) who teaches time lag with respect to templates. However, with respect to exemplary claim 3, the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality of claim 3.
Claims 4, 16, and 21 is allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Khanna (US10346459B1) in further view of Mishra (US20210097062A1) in further view of Willemain (US20150161545A1) in further view of Messana (US20120271850A1) in further view of Iyengar (US20120197904A1) who teaches consistency coefficient. However, with respect to exemplary claim 4, 16, and 21, the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality of claim 4, 16, and 21.
Claims 11 is allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Khanna (US10346459B1) in further view of Mishra (US20210097062A1) in further view of Willemain (US20150161545A1) in further view of Messana (US20120271850A1) in further view of Crudele (US20210224339A1) who teaches aggregating data. However, with respect to exemplary claim 11, the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality of claim 11.
Claims 12 is allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Khanna (US10346459B1) in further view of Mishra (US20210097062A1) in further view of Willemain (US20150161545A1) in further view of Messana (US20120271850A1) in further view of Mann (US20190132191A1) who teaches user feedback. However, with respect to exemplary claim 12, the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality of claim 12.
Claims 13 is allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Khanna (US10346459B1) in further view of Mishra (US20210097062A1) in further view of Willemain (US20150161545A1) in further view of Messana (US20120271850A1) in further view of Horesh (US20220318254A1) who teaches selectable links. However, with respect to exemplary claim 13, the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality of claim 13.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-21 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium, system, and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-21 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 18 and similarly claims 1 and 14 recite the limitations of
…extracting event data objects from a stream of input data…each event data object comprising a parameter from a data set and a numerical trend over a predetermined period of time; retrieving…a plurality of selected expert rule templates… the selected expert rule templates being selected based on having input parameters that match the parameters of one or more of the event data objects, each expert rule template stored…including a cause parameter from the data set, an effect parameter from the data set, change thresholds for both the cause and the effect parameters and time intervals for both the cause and effect parameters; identifying cause-effect relationships between parameters of the data set in response to the selected expert rule templates being satisfied by the extracted event data objects; transmitting…narrative text and one or more visualizations associated with a satisfied selected expert rule template… causing an insight graphic…to be displayed…the insight graphic…including the narrative text and the one or more visualizations; identifying…a correlated pair of different parameters of the data set observed over a plurality of predetermined correlation time periods, the correlated pair being identified based on pairwise comparison of all parameters of the data set and a persistance probability of the different parameters; creating a new expert rule template…based on the correlated pair of different parameters between the different parameters; and generating an alert in response to one of the expert rule templates…or the new expert rule template being contradicted by subsequent data in the stream of input data.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of extracting, retrieving, identifying, transmitting, displaying, creating, and generating data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of a system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, the claim language encompasses simply extracting event data, retrieving templates, identifying cause and effect relationships with respect to the event data, transmitting narrative text and visualization data to be displayed, identifying a correlated pair, creating a new template, and generating an alert. These are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer.
The claims also recite event data which are respect to business events as seen in para 0057 in Applicant’s specification. The templates recited in the claims are also with respect to business values as seen in para 10042. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (sales activity, fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations). It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of server, network connection, rule engine module, database, display device, interface, system, processor, and non-transitory computer readable medium.
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe other interfaces such as rule candidate interface in response to a probability. The dependent claims further state additional details about the template such as a dimension constraint and time lag field. The dependent claims further state additional abstract idea steps such as aggregating data.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
Method, however method is not considered an additional element.
Claim 1 further states server, network connection, rule engine module, database, display device, insight graphic interface, statistical correlation module,
Claim 2 recites rule candidate interface
Claim 5 and 17 recites data storage structure
Claim 14 recites system, processor, non-transitory computer readable medium, network connection, database, display device, insight graphic interface
Claim 18 recites non-transitory computer readable medium, processor, network connection, rule engine module, database, display device, insight graphic interface, statistical correlation module
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant’s specification states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 10043.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states a general-purpose computer configuration as seen in para 10043. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds 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, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used 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.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khanna (US10346459B1) in further view of Mishra (US20210097062A1) in further view of Willemain (US20150161545A1) in further view of Messana (US20120271850A1).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claims 14, and 18, Khanna teaches
A method comprising (See col. 3-4 One skilled in the art will readily recognize from the following discussion that alternative embodiments of the structures and methods illustrated herein) This teaches a method.
A system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a plurality of instructions, which when executed, cause the one or more processors to (See fig. 11) This shows a system that includes processor and machine readable medium.
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having embodied thereon a program, the program being executable by a processor for performing a method comprising (See figure 11) This shows machine readable medium and processor.
Extracting by a server event data objects from a stream of input data received…(See col 1-2 The system identifies an event associated with the user. In various embodiments, these events can be associated with user workflows and could be driven by process workflows, activity workflows, or action workflows. As an example, an event may represent certain action associated with an external system, for example, a customer relationship management (CRM) system. These example actions could be designated updates or change in status as per defined process workflows) (See col 5-6- For example, the scheduler 255 tracks various events associated with the user, for example, meetings of users or action schedules and reminders, events associated with user based on external systems such as CRM systems, etc.) (See col 10-11- For example, the insight capture module 210 may identify an event associated with the user, for example, a meeting based on a calendar application. )This teaches the system extracts event data objects such as events associated with a user for the user to make insights for them. These deal with input data such as updates to workflows and calendar entries that are received. The system 100 corresponds to the server since it extracts event data.
each event data object comprising a parameter from a data set The event data object can have parameters such as a topic and activity threshold (See col 10-11- may present a user interface for capturing an insight based on an events associated with an activity threshold on a topic.) (See col 10-11 The insight capture module 210 identifies one or more topics associated with the event.) Other parameters for the event data include what stage the workflow went to as seen here (See col 9-10- Capturing an insight based on a process workflow event…For example, insight capture module 210 detects a workflow transition representing a change from stage A to B)
retrieving, via a rule engine module, a plurality of selected expert rule templates from an expert rule database (See col 10-11- In an embodiment, the insight capture module 210 identifies a set of templates and presents a list of the identified templates to the user ) This shows the system is able to retrieve plurality of templates and gives them to the user. The system 100 corresponds to the rule engine module. (See col 6-7- The insight template store 235 stores various types of templates for creation of insights.) This shows the template store corresponds to expert rule database.
the selected expert rule templates being selected based on having input parameters that match the parameters of one or more of the event data objects, (See col 6-7- The insight template store 235 also associates a template with a process or workflow event. The template is associated with a workflow event or a process of the organization/enterprise or any activity performed by a set of users. For example, a template may be associated with a sales workflow of a sales organization, or a workflow for capturing a product feature by a marketing or engineering department.) (See col 9-10- The insight capture module 210 associates templates with the events to guide the user to structure the data and ensure all key points for the associated events get covered. The insight capture module 210 associates templates with events also for compliance of data capture and for providing rich meta data that can be used for annotation, tagging, categorization or determination of topics associated with insights) (See col 9-10- For example, insight capture module 210 detects a workflow transition representing a change from stage A to B, and trigger an event to prompt a user to capture an insight representing either the transition or the new stage, guiding the user with the appropriate mapped template) (See col 10-11- The insight capture module 210 selects a template based on the topics of the meeting and presents a user interface allowing the user to capture an insight based on the selected template at a threshold time interval after the scheduled event.) (See col 10-11 In an embodiment, the insight capture module 210 identifies the set of templates for presentation to the user based on information describing the event. For example, the insight capture module 210 identifies templates matching topics associated with the event. The insight capture module 210 may identify the set of templates based on users associated with the event. For example, the insight capture module 210 may identify the set of templates that match topics associated with the users. The topics are associated with the users based on the content of user interactions performed by the user, or based on their role or functions in the organization.) The system selects the templates based on the input parameters of the template matching event data parameters. This is done to properly guide the user in structuring the insight. For example, if an event is associated with a certain topic or certain workflow, the selected templates will have input parameters that match the event data parameters so a proper insight is created.
each expert rule template stored within the expert rule database (See col. The insight template store 235 stores various types of templates for creation of insights.) This shows the template store corresponds to expert rule database.
Even though Khanna teaches extracting event data objects that are received, it is not clear that the input data is received over a network, however another section of Khanna teaches
Received over a network (See fig. 1 and 11 and col. 3-4- The overall system environment comprises an insight management system and one or more client devices 110 interacting with the client device via a network (not shown in FIG. 1)) This teaches that data can be received over a network.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined receiving information over the network as taught in Khanna with respect to the extraction of event data objects since Khanna already teaches that his information can come from external systems as seen in col 5-6. The external system would be able to communicate with system 100 via a network. This would make the system of Khanna more sophisticated since it would be able to receive this sort of information over a network.
In addition, even though Khana teaches the event data objects have parameters, it is not clear that they have numerical trends over time, however Mishra teaches and a numerical trend over a predetermined period of time (See fig. 7B) Fig. 7B teaches a numerical trend over time.
Khanna and Mishra are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of creating insights from events and both belong to classification G06F. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Khanna’s invention by incorporating the method of Mishra because Khanna would also be able to supply numerical trend data to the user of Khanna with respect to the workflow, topic, and event data. This would let the user of Khanna see different trends such as the number of events and topic with respect to a period of time as well as how workflows are progressing. This would make the system of Khanna more sophisticated since it would give more robust data to the user.
In addition, even though Khanna teaches templates and insight information, it doesn’t teach cause and effect data, however Mishra teaches
including a cause parameter from the data set, an effect parameter from the data set, change thresholds for both the cause and the effect parameters and time intervals for both the cause-and-effect parameters; (See figure 7J) This teaches cause parameters such as the dimension variable like sales channel and region. This also teaches the effect parameter such as cost, profit, revenue. The system is also able to change thresholds for these parameters such as which date to go by such as order date and ship date. The system is also able to change time intervals for these parameters such as which period to go by such as monthly, weekly, and daily.
identifying, by the server, cause-effect relationships between parameters of the data set… (See fig. 7J) This shows relationship with respect to profit and dimension (i.e. cause and effect).
Khanna and Mishra are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of creating insights from events and both belong to classification G06F. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Khanna’s invention by incorporating the method of Mishra because Khanna would also be able to show cause and effect data with respect to making insights. This would let the user of Khanna see cause and effect relationships with respect to events and these relationships could be shown to the user in fig. 10C of Khanna.
However, Mishra doesn’t make it clear that it is done in response to a template being satisfied, however Khanna already teaches in response to the selected expert rule templates being satisfied by the extracted event data objects; (See col. 9-10-The insight capture module 210 associates templates with the events to guide the user to structure the data and ensure all key points for the associated events get covered. The insight capture module 210 associates templates with events also for compliance of data capture and for providing rich meta data that can be used for annotation, tagging, categorization or determination of topics associated with insights.) This teaches that templates are selected to satisfy the type of event such as making sure the data will be compliant and all key points of event get covered.
Khanna and Mishra are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of creating insights from events and both belong to classification G06F. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Khanna’s invention by incorporating the method of Mishra because Khanna would also be able to show cause and effect data with respect to making insights. This would let the user of Khanna see cause and effect relationships with respect to events and these relationships could be shown to the user in fig. 10C of Khanna. In addition, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Mishra’s invention by incorporating the method of Khanna since the system of Mishra would first determine a suitable interface template to the show before determining cause and effect relationships to show the user.
In addition, Mishra further teaches transmitting, by the server via the network connection, narrative text and one or more visualizations associated with a…template to a display device; (See figure 7J) This teaches the system displays to a user device narrative text and visualization which is associated with a template as seen on the display device. This is with respect to a server as seen in para 0050 (The environment 100 includes a computing device 102, a network 104, and a dynamic data visualization and narration module 106. The computing device 102 may be connected to the one or more computing devices via the network 104. The network 104 may include but not limited to, an Internet of things (IoT network devices), an Ethernet, a wireless local area network (WLAN), or a wide area network (WAN), a Bluetooth low energy network, a ZigBee network, a WIFI communication network)
Khanna and Mishra are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of creating insights from events and both belong to classification G06F. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Khanna’s invention by incorporating the method of Mishra because Khanna would also be able to show cause and effect data with respect to making insights and also show narrative text and visualizations. This would let the user of Khanna see cause and effect relationships with respect to events and these relationships could be shown to the user in fig. 10C of Khanna.
In addition, Khanna already teaches with a satisfied selected expert rule template(See col. 9-10-The insight capture module 210 associates templates with the events to guide the user to structure the data and ensure all key points for the associated events get covered. The insight capture module 210 associates templates with events also for compliance of data capture and for providing rich meta data that can be used for annotation, tagging, categorization or determination of topics associated with insights.) This teaches that templates are selected to satisfy the type of event such as making sure the data will be compliant and all key points of event get covered.
In addition, Mishra further teaches causing, by the server, an insight graphic interface to be displayed by the display device, the insight graphic interface including the narrative text and the one or more visualizations (See figure 7J) This shows an insight graphic interface since it shows the narrative text and visualizations. This is shown on the display device of the user.
Khanna and Mishra are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of creating insights from events and both belong to classification G06F. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Khanna’s invention by incorporating the method of Mishra because Khanna would also be able to show cause and effect data with respect to making insights and also show narrative text and visualizations. This would let the user of Khanna see cause and effect relationships with respect to events and these relationships could be shown to the user in fig. 10C of Khanna.
In addition, even though Khanna teaches event data, it doesn’t teach correlated data, however Mishra teaches identifying, by the server via a statistical correlation module, a correlated pair of different parameters of the data set observed over a plurality of predetermined correlation time periods, the correlated pair being identified based on pairwise comparison of all parameters of the data set (See para 0086- 700 j may include, for example, Middle East and North Africa had the most identical trend of Total Profit compared to the overall trend of Total Profit for all Region(s). Regions Middle East and North Africa have the most similar trend to Total Profit. The system figured out trends for each Region and came up with an insight by finding the most correlated Region to overall trend of Total Profit. Finding patterns and similarity between them and deciding which ones to show as an insight act as another capability of the system.) This shows that system found correlated pair of data sets with which are Middle East and Africa with respect to total profit and different time periods. This is based on pairwise comparison since it is looking at data pairs of month and total profit with respect to different regions.
Khanna and Mishra are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of creating insights from events and both belong to classification G06F. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Khanna’s invention by incorporating the method of Mishra because Khanna would also be able to show correlated data such as how different insights are correlated together. For example, how the calendar meeting data is correlated with workflow completion data. This would make the system of Khanna more sophisticated since it would be able to make these correlations.
However, Khanna and Mishra do not teach persistence/coincidence probability, but Willemain teaches and a coincidence/persistence probability of the different parameters (See abstract- to calculate a set of coincidence probabilities for pairs of items in the inventory database) This shows determining coincidence/persistence probability with respect to parameters which are the items.
Khanna, Mishra, and Willemain are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of data management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Khanna’s and Mishra’s invention by incorporating the method of Willemain because coincidence probability can be incorporated with the art of Khanna and Mishra. For example, coincidence probability can be used to determine links between different insights in Khanna and links between different sale events in Mishra. This would make both arts more sophisticated since it adds another layer of data analysis.
Khanna further teaches creating, by the server, a new expert rule template in the expert rule database (See col 21-22 The user is also given an option to create/edit (as per FIG. 9D interface) a custom template if the existing set of templates do not meet the user requirement.) This shows making a new rule template that is part of the database as already explained above.
However, this is not based on correlated pair, however Mishra teaches based on the correlated pair of different parameters between the different parameters; and (See para 0086- 700 j may include, for example, Middle East and North Africa had the most identical trend of Total Profit compared to the overall trend of Total Profit for all Region(s). Regions Middle East and North Africa have the most similar trend to Total Profit. The system figured out trends for each Region and came up with an insight by finding the most correlated Region to overall trend of Total Profit. Finding patterns and similarity between them and deciding which ones to show as an insight act as another capability of the system.) This shows correlated pair with respect to different parameters such as those seen in figure 7J.
Khanna and Mishra are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of creating insights from events and both belong to classification G06F. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Khanna’s invention by incorporating the method of Mishra because Khanna would also be able to show correlated data such as how different insights are correlated together. For example, how the calendar meeting data is correlated with workflow completion data. This would make the system of Khanna more sophisticated since it would be able to make these correlations.
Khanna further teaches generating an alert, by the server, in response to one of the expert rule templates in the expert rule database or the new expert rule template (See col. In an embodiment, the insight management system 100 sends notifications to users. A notification may be sent, for example, if a new insight is added to a collection associated with the user or a build is performed on an insight created by the user, or any other event occurs in the insight management system that is likely to be of interest to the user) This teaches generating an alert (i.e. notification) based on expert rules templates (i.e. new insight added). The new insight corresponds to a template.
However, Khanna doesn’t teach templates contradicting, but Messana teaches template being contradicted by subsequent data in the stream of input data. (See para 0142- This seeks to avoid confusion between certain templates that are too similar to one another and that would reach the required match percentage in spite of a major contradiction. For example, when considering a document of the letter type in which the carrier requests a commercial invoice, the content will be almost the same as if the carrier were requesting a shipping order. In contrast, the actions to be undertaken are completely different. Consequently, it is important to avoid making an association with a template that is not in fact suitable. For this purpose, the concept of a forbidden word serves to prevent a character string being associated with a template if a forbidden word is present in the character string (e.g.: if “order” is present in the character string, then it is not possible to select a template requiring a commercial invoice, which template has the word “order” identified as being a forbidden word).) This teaches a template is contradicted (i.e. not compatible) with respect to data which is the character string.
Khanna and Messana are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of templates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Khanna’s invention by incorporating the method of Messana because Khanna would also be able to implement percentages with association of templates. For example, Khana would have a percentage match between the event and the template and it would determine based on this percentage if it is the suitable template. This makes the art of Khanna more sophisticated since it adds another layer of determining the correct template.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Vadlamudi (US-20200081969-A1) Discloses an automated pattern template generation system is provided.
Iyengar (US-20120197904-A1) Discloses systems and methods for dominance rankings. The disclosure describes a novel approach for determining dominance rankings between competing interacting objects.
Crudele (US-20210224339-A1) Discloses systems and methods for providing insights to users of a mobile application based on triggers that may be detected from within the data or externally.
Mann (US-20190132191-A1) Discloses a system and method for predictive ticketing in information technology (IT) systems. The method includes extracting a plurality of features from monitoring data related to an IT system, wherein the plurality of features includes at least one incident parameter, wherein the monitoring data includes machine-generated textual data.
Horesh (US-20220318254-A1) Discloses techniques for generating an insight, comprising: receiving a request to generate an insight for a document from a user associated with the document.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625