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 . Claims 1-20 have been reviewed and are under consideration by this office action.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non- Final Rejection Applicant amended claims. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are received and acknowledged.
The amended claims overcome the 102 rejection by adding new limitations to the independent claims. However, a new 103 rejection is facilitated by the amendments.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the claims are not directed towards mental processes as the claims recite Knowledge Management Platform (KMP) comprising various other managers which perform functions that cannot be performed in the human mind.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed towards identifying a knowledge transfer plan from person to person, identifying a meeting, generating a meeting summary, accessing data, and aggregating data all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper). The KMP is addressed below as an additional element which performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant contends that the claims are not directed towards organizing human activity.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the claims are directed towards transferring knowledge to younger, less experienced employees (See Specification, [20]).
Applicant contends that the claims are integrated into a practical application as the KMP accesses various types of data, creates data, analyzes data, etc.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of the claim are bolded below and further addressed in Step 2A-Prong and are determined to be performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant contends that the claims provide a technical improvement to the use of new systems.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims do not improve the technology nor the technological field and merely improve upon the abstract idea itself.
The 101 Rejection is updated and maintained below.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 102 rejection, but facilitate a new 103 rejection.
Applicant contends that the newly amended claims are not taught by the currently cited prior art.
Examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. The amended claims require further search and consideration and now rely on the Hosabettu prior art reference to teach the amended claims not taught by Swaminathan (herein after referred to as “Swam”).
Applicant contends that Swam does not teach identifying… questions associated with a role, nor the first and second person meeting to discuss at least a … questions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Swam does teach the identifying limitation (Swam, [32-34]; The server thus forms or includes a processor configured to present a query or a series of queries to a know-how expert. The query includes questions associated with one or more defined roles for the procedure to be transferred). Further Swam does teach the second limitation as well of discussing questions (Swam, [86]; One example is a tool which creates discussion threads among users. A discussion thread is a text based query and response system in which text messages are displayed on screen. The messages are organized hierarchically and by subject, so that new message threads may be spun off of existing threads in order to focus a discussion on an identified topic). The full citations and explanations can be seen below.
Applicant contends that Swam does teach creating a summary of the role based on the various information.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner further points to Swam, [25, 21, 52, 54]. Full citations and explanations can be seen below.
Applicant contends that the Blohm reference is not valid prior art as it is filed after the provisional application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The provisional application does not provide 112(a) support for Large Language Models, summaries, or questions. Therefore, the Blohm reference is valid prior art as it was filed 04/14/2023 before the effective filing date of the present application of 09/29/2024.
The 103 Rejection is updated and maintained below.
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 1-20 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.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One – The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely in independent claims 1 and 16 recite a series of steps for abstract idea:
Regarding Claims 1: (additional elements bolded)
A method comprising:
identifying, by a knowledge management platform, a knowledge transfer plan for transferring knowledge from a first person to a second person, wherein the knowledge transfer plan is associated with a role
identifying, by the knowledge management platform, a plurality of questions associated with the role:
scheduling, by the knowledge management platform, a meeting between the first person and the second person to transfer knowledge therebetween, wherein the first person and the second person discuss at least a portion of the plurality of questions associated with the role during the meeting
generating, by the knowledge management platform, a summary of the meeting;
accessing, by the knowledge management platform, data from an external source that is related to the role of the knowledge transfer plan; and
aggregating, by the knowledge management platform, the summary of the meeting and the data from an external source into the knowledge transfer plan.
creating a summary of the role based on at least one of the meeting between the first and second persons, summaries of the meeting, data from external sources, or the aggregated data.
Regarding Claims 16:
A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the system to:
identify a knowledge transfer plan for transferring knowledge from a first person to a second person, wherein the knowledge transfer plan is associated with a role;
identify a plurality of questions associated with the role;
schedule a meeting between the first person and the second person to transfer knowledge therebetween, wherein the first person and the second person discuss at least a portion of the plurality of questions associated with the role during the meeting;
generate, using a large language model, a summary of the meeting;
access data from an external source that is related to the role of the knowledge transfer plan; and
aggregate, using the large language model, the summary of the meeting and the data from an external source into the knowledge transfer plan.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as the claims are directed towards identifying a knowledge transfer plan from person to person, identifying a meeting, generating a meeting summary, accessing data, and aggregating data all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper).
Further the claims are directed towards the abstract idea grouping of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as the claims are directed towards transferring knowledge to younger, less experienced employees (See Specification, [20]).
Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims utilize at least a knowledge management platform, A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the system; and a large language model (recited at a high level of generality). The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are just “apply it” on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claim(s) 2-8, 12, and 19, the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously addressed in the independent claims.
Regarding Claim(s) 9-11, 14-15, 17-18, and 20, the claim further recite the additional element(s) of a large language model and a prompt/prompting to a large language model (recited at a high level of generality). This element(s) is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B.
Regarding Claim(s) 13 the claim further recite the additional element(s) of communicating the summary of the role to at least one other system. This element(s) is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Steps 2A-Prong 2. In Step 2B, the element is an activity that has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)).
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 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 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swaminathan et al. (US 20120047106 A1) herein after referred to as “Swam” in view of Hosabettu et al. (US 20160019485 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Swam teaches: A method comprising: identifying, by a knowledge management platform, a knowledge transfer plan for transferring knowledge from a first person to a second person, wherein the knowledge transfer plan is associated with a role; (Swam, [claim 6]; A knowledge transfer method comprising: at a server, receiving information related to a role-specific function to be transferred from a first worker to a second worker; storing in a database accessible by the server the information related to the role-specific function; at the server, based on the received information, evaluating knowledge transfer from the first worker to the second worker along a continuum from no knowledge transfer to a substantially complete knowledge transfer and Swam, [32-34]; The server thus forms or includes a processor configured to present a query or a series of queries to a know-how expert. The query includes questions associated with one or more defined roles for the procedure to be transferred. The server memory stores the answers to the query. The processor then creates role-specific portals based on the answers to the query. Each role-specific portal is associated with one or more defined role… The Knowledge Transfer Plan Wizard system 104 is a mechanism by which the user can custom-create a Knowledge Transfer Plan 107 for a specific engagement. This can be done by adapting the outsourcing agency's preferred and prescribed methodology for knowledge transfer… The Knowledge Transfer Best Practices (105) provide tips and advice to the user on established techniques for accomplishing specific knowledge transfer tasks. An example of a best practice might be advice on how to plan the transfer of an expert's trouble shooting or debugging skills to a novice. Another example may be standard ways of estimating the time it typically takes an expert to train a novice on how to use a computer application. Such an estimate might be based on the number of screens that the novice will have to become familiar with and the number of user tasks supported by each screen and Swam, [31]; Examples of the information received by the web page forms include but are not limited to (a) knowledge and computer applications to be transitioned from the client's expert workers to the outsourcing agency's apprentice workers; (b) the usernames of current owners, meaning one or more expert workers currently associated with an application; (c) target owners, meaning one or more apprentice workers to whom the expert's knowledge is being transferred; (d) and details about the application. Such details might include information about the complexity of the application, the type of application, the application's category, and information about a vendor of tools related to the application). Examiner notes that Swam describes topics such as debugging or trouble shooting.
identifying, by the knowledge management platform, a plurality of questions associated with the role: (Swam, [32]; The server thus forms or includes a processor configured to present a query or a series of queries to a know-how expert. The query includes questions associated with one or more defined roles for the procedure to be transferred. The server memory stores the answers to the query. The processor then creates role-specific portals based on the answers to the query. Each role-specific portal is associated with one or more defined roles).
….by the knowledge management platform, a meeting between the first person and the second person to transfer knowledge therebetween, (Swam, [11]; The system makes use of unique tools to facilitate transfer of knowledge and collaboration of individuals, even among remotely located individuals. An input to the system is a Knowledge Transfer Plan (KTP) which has been designed to orchestrate the knowledge transfer process. The knowledge transfer system integrates a shared repository and collaboration tools for use by the experts and their apprentices and Swam, [85]; The collaboration tools 112 are used by current knowledge owners and their associated apprentices to complete knowledge transfer tasks and to capture ad-hoc information. The collaboration tools 112 bring together the voices, screens, and computations of peers to improve productivity in the workplace. Program code defines the collaboration tools 112 or systems for two-way and other communication between individual expert workers and individual apprentice workers and Swam, [87]; A second collaboration tool allows a user to initiate an Instant Messaging session. Instant Messaging is a set of software processes that allow text-based communication between two or more users. In an Instant Messaging session, a temporary communication link is created over the network between the participants. Communication can be substantially real-time and Swam, [103]; Asynchronous collaboration involves capturing a screen as an image or screen activity as a video for viewing later. Synchronous collaboration involves real-time sharing of a screen between two users to simulate "over the shoulder learning." Both are preferably incorporated into the knowledge transfer application and Swam, [112]; an apprentice may need additional instruction on completion of a particular task for an application as defined by the Knowledge Transfer Plan and involving a computer application, the apprentice may initiate an Instant Messaging session with the expert associated with the task). Examiner notes that Swam does teach a knowledge transfer platform and identifying meetings for knowledge transfer but does not appear to explicitly teach the scheduling aspect. Examiner relies on Hosabettu below to explicitly teach scheduling meetings.
wherein the first person and the second person discuss at least a portion of the plurality of questions associated with the role during the meeting; (Swam, [86]; One example is a tool which creates discussion threads among users. A discussion thread is a text based query and response system in which text messages are displayed on screen. The messages are organized hierarchically and by subject, so that new message threads may be spun off of existing threads in order to focus a discussion on an identified topic). Examiner notes the topics are related to the knowledge transfer between experts and apprentices.
generating, by the knowledge management platform, a summary of the meeting; (Swam, [113]; the expert may respond to the apprentice by initiating a screen capture. During the screen capture session, the expert manipulates his personal computer to perform the task. The display is captured along with the expert's voiceover narration, if provided. The captured screen display is conveyed to the apprentice who plays back the captured session and sees an example of task completion. The captured session may be played back repeatedly by the apprentice or by other apprentices to reinforce the knowledge transfer and Swam, [140]; The tasks area 704 includes a list of tasks to be completed for completion of knowledge transfer for an application. Each task in the list is displayed as a link to a web page providing additional information about that task. Displayed in the tasks area is summary information for each task, including the task title, the user to which the task is assigned and task status).
accessing, by the knowledge management platform, data from an external source that is related to the role of the knowledge transfer plan; and (Swam, [11]; Based on the KTP (provided as input), the system creates a role-specific "portal" for each individual involved in the knowledge transfer process (experts, apprentices and management personnel). The portal provides a unified interface to all resources (knowledge and collaboration tools) that that individual needs in performing his or her role in the knowledge transfer process and Swam, [33]; The Knowledge Transfer Plan Wizard system 104 is a mechanism by which the user can custom-create a Knowledge Transfer Plan 107 for a specific engagement. This can be done by adapting the outsourcing agency's preferred and prescribed methodology for knowledge transfer. KTPW System 104 accomplishes this by taking as input (a) a set of Knowledge Transfer Best Practices 105 and (b) a Knowledge Transfer Template 106 and Swam, [122]; the task completion wizard system 116 may create a web page showing task steps and providing navigation tools or pop up menu access to the collaboration tools 112. Further, the task completion wizard system 116 provides links to related information and help guides for each task and Swam, [155] A user enters data into forms of the wizard system 104 and the wizard system 104 collects, organizes and stores the data which is specific to the engagement and the applications. Data, along with the Knowledge Transfer Plan data, are stored in the RTS database). Examiner interprets the links to related information, best practices, templates, and user input as external sources as they are input into the system.
aggregating, by the knowledge management platform, the summary of the meeting and the data from an external source into the knowledge transfer plan. (Swam, [29]; The knowledge transfer system may be initiated through the Rapid Transition Suite Home Page 102. The Rapid Transition Suite Home Page 102 provides access to the Knowledge Transfer Plan Wizard ("KTPW") system 104. and Swam, [37]; Knowledge Transfer Plan Wizard system 104 takes as input the Knowledge Transfer Best Practices 105 and Knowledge Transfer Plan Template 106 and enables the user to create a Knowledge Transfer Plan 107 for a specific engagement. KTPW System 104 accomplishes this by presenting a series of web pages to the user and directs the user to provide necessary information. The system 104 responds to the user's inputs with further queries tailored to prompt the user to provide additional necessary information that will constitute the Knowledge Transfer Plan 107 for the specific engagement and Swam, [138-139]; FIG. 7 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of an application home page 132. As noted above, application home pages provide a central team view of all knowledge to be transitioned for a single application. Current knowledge owners, or experts, and recipients, or apprentices, use this site as the central point to perform knowledge transfer for each application… The application home page 132 includes a navigation area 702, a tasks area 704, a news area 706, an issues area 708 and a milestones area 710. The navigation area 702 provides links 712 to other locations in the system. The links 712 are organized functionally and Swam, [140]; The tasks area 704 includes a list of tasks to be completed for completion of knowledge transfer for an application. Each task in the list is displayed as a link to a web page providing additional information about that task. Displayed in the tasks area is summary information for each task, including the task title, the user to which the task is assigned and task status and Swam, [155] A user enters data into forms of the wizard system 104 and the wizard system 104 collects, organizes and stores the data which is specific to the engagement and the applications. Data, along with the Knowledge Transfer Plan data, are stored in the RTS database and Swam, [Fig. 7]; provides visual representation of aggregated data).
creating a summary of the role based on at least one of the meeting between the first and second persons, summaries of the meeting, data from external sources, or the aggregated data. (Swam, [25]; In the embodiment of FIG. 1, the system 100 includes a Rapid Transition Suite Home Page 102, a Knowledge Transfer Plan Wizard system 104, a set of Knowledge Transfer Best Practices 105, a Knowledge Transfer Template 106, a Knowledge Transfer Plan 107, a Portal Page Creation Process 108, an Engagement Site 110 and information about users and roles 124 and Swam, [21]; In order to achieve business goals, the client engages the outsourcing agent to transition the job function from expert workers at a location of the client to apprentice workers at a location of the outsourcing agency. After the transition, the apprentice workers perform the job function on behalf of the client on an ongoing basis throughout the engagement and Swam, [52]; The information about roles and users 124 is determined by each engagement. This information 124 is used as an input to the Knowledge Transfer and Swam, [54]; The generic roles may be tailored by operation of the Knowledge Transfer Plan Wizard system 104 in accordance with the particular engagement. For example, for a particular application, there is assigned a knowledge owner, a knowledge recipient and a transition manager. The knowledge owner corresponds to the expert worker of the client and Swam, [155]; The data stored in the RTS database 1002 may be stored in any form or format. In the illustrated embodiment, the data defines information such as knowledge areas, users, roles, tasks, a timeline and milestones).
While Swam teaches the use of a knowledge management platform, identifying meetings between a first and second person to transfer knowledge and further supplying means for the meeting, Swam does not appear to explicitly teach scheduling. However, Swam in view of the analogous art of Hosabettu (i.e. business meetings) does teach: scheduling… a meeting between the first person and the second person; (Hosabettu, [39]; the meeting scheduler module 222 performs automatic scheduling of meetings. The meeting scheduler module 222 detects conflicts between different meeting schedules. Also, the meeting scheduler module 222 provides possible solutions for resolving the conflicts).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Swam including the use of a knowledge management platform, identifying meetings between a first and second person to transfer knowledge and further supplying means for the meeting with the teachings of Hosabettu including scheduling of meetings in order to automatically schedule meetings and resolve conflicts in scheduling (Hosabettu, [39]; the meeting scheduler module 222 performs automatic scheduling of meetings. The meeting scheduler module 222 detects conflicts between different meeting schedules. Also, the meeting scheduler module 222 provides possible solutions for resolving the conflicts).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Swam/Hosabettu further teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the first person possesses knowledge related to the role and the second person wants to receive knowledge related to the topic. (Swam, [07]; The present invention deals primarily with the third phase of the outsourcing engagement--knowledge transfer between expert employees of the client and the apprentice employees of the outsourcing agency who will eventually take over the outsourced job function. The knowledge transfer phase has heretofore required extensive personal interaction between an employee expert and an assigned consultant apprentice. A process of job shadowing has been used, in which the apprentice learns the necessary knowledge directly from the expert by watching and listening and gradually performing individual job tasks under expert supervision and Swam, [34]; The Knowledge Transfer Best Practices (105) provide tips and advice to the user on established techniques for accomplishing specific knowledge transfer tasks. An example of a best practice might be advice on how to plan the transfer of an expert's trouble shooting or debugging skills to a novice).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Swam/Hosabettu further teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the knowledge transfer plan includes: details regarding topics to be discussed by the first person and the second person; and (Swam, [37]; The Knowledge Transfer Plan Wizard system 104 takes as input the Knowledge Transfer Best Practices 105 and Knowledge Transfer Plan Template 106 and enables the user to create a Knowledge Transfer Plan 107 for a specific engagement. KTPW System 104 accomplishes this by presenting a series of web pages to the user and directs the user to provide necessary information. The system 104 responds to the user's inputs with further queries tailored to prompt the user to provide additional necessary information that will constitute the Knowledge Transfer Plan 107 for the specific engagement and Swam, [86]; One example is a tool which creates discussion threads among users. A discussion thread is a text based query and response system in which text messages are displayed on screen. The messages are organized hierarchically and by subject, so that new message threads may be spun off of existing threads in order to focus a discussion on an identified topic and Swam, [142]; The issues area includes a list of links to records defining problems or topics that need discussion or collaboration).
a timeframe for scheduling a plurality of meetings between the first person and the second person. (Swam, [37]; the user is presented with standard timeframes for completion of the tasks. The user's inputs in response to these prompts control subsequent prompts or form fields presented to the user. The standard tasks and timeframes may also be updated, customized or supplemented to produce an accurate transition plan for each application and Swam, [77]; The key metrics are defined specifically according to the Knowledge Transfer Plan for specific roles and applications. Product, status and success factors are tracked by resource and by application. In some embodiments, a calendar and schedule may be displayed for all applications. Milestones and key dates may be highlighted in any suitable fashion on the calendar and the schedule and Swam, [112]; an apprentice may need additional instruction on completion of a particular task for an application as defined by the Knowledge Transfer Plan and involving a computer application, the apprentice may initiate an Instant Messaging session with the expert associated with the task. The Instant Messaging session or any of the collaboration tools may be initiated by, for example, manipulating a pop up menu on the user's display screen). Examiner interprets the timeframe for knowledge transfer including the chats, messages, and meetings as the timeframe for scheduling meetings.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Swam/Hosabettu teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a completed meeting between the first person and the second person; and (Swam, [87]; In an Instant Messaging session, a temporary communication link is created over the network between the participants. Communication can be substantially real-time. A text message may also include an attachment such as a data file. Upon completion of the session, the communication link is ended. Instant Messaging is well suited to communication between users who work simultaneously but separately).
While Swam teaches identifying a meeting a completed meeting, Swam does not appear to explicitly teach updating a status of the meeting. However, Swam in view of the analogous art of Hosabettu (i.e. business meetings) does teach: updating an implementation status of the knowledge transfer plan to indicate completion of the meeting between the first person and the second person. (Hosabettu, [67]; In an embodiment, once the meeting is completed, the meeting organizer may update the details of the meeting in the historical data 216 for future reference. The details of meeting which is updated by the meeting organizer, includes, for example, participants who attended the meeting, participation level of each participant, like active or inactive etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Swam including identifying a meeting a completed meeting with the teachings of Hosabettu including updating status of completion in order to confirm a participant was in attendance and did receive the necessary information, (Hosabettu, [67]; In an embodiment, once the meeting is completed, the meeting organizer may update the details of the meeting in the historical data 216 for future reference. The details of meeting which is updated by the meeting organizer, includes, for example, participants who attended the meeting, participation level of each participant, like active or inactive etc.).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Swam/Hosabettu teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the data from an external source includes at least one of a document, recorded notes, an email message, a communication service message, or CRM (customer relationship management) system data. (Swam, [102]; A fourth collaboration tool allows a user to initiate audio and video messages. The author speaks for audio recording or performs before a camera for video recording. The audio or video is converted to digital form, if appropriate, and is then conveyed to the recipient. Communication may be through any suitable channel or in any suitable format. For example, the audio or video information may be attached to an electronic mail message, or may be stored to a central location while a message is sent to the recipient prompting the recipient to retrieve the stored information. One example of a page for access to captured video information will be described below in conjunction with FIG. 9 and Swam, [105]; In one embodiment, a product known as SnagIt is used to enable asynchronous collaboration capabilities. SnagIt is available from TechSmith Corporation, Okemos, Mich. SnagIt is capable of taking snapshots of a screen to save as an image and recording video and audio to create movie files of users performing actions on their desktop. This product also provides the capability to integrate screen capture capabilities within the Knowledge Transfer Plan application when necessary). Examiner notes that the SnagIt application would be an external application to the platform itself.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Swam/Hosabettu teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting activity associated with the knowledge transfer plan; and (Swam, [29]; The knowledge transfer system may be initiated through the Rapid Transition Suite Home Page 102. The Rapid Transition Suite Home Page 102 provides access to the Knowledge Transfer Plan Wizard ("KTPW") system 104. The Knowledge Transfer Plan Wizard system 104 is a set of form-driven web pages that lead users through processes of creating or updating online transition plans. The forms, in one embodiment, contain text input blocks and other input devices configured to receive user-defined application and user information and Swam, [37]; KTPW System 104 accomplishes this by presenting a series of web pages to the user and directs the user to provide necessary information. The system 104 responds to the user's inputs with further queries tailored to prompt the user to provide additional necessary information that will constitute the Knowledge Transfer Plan 107 for the specific engagement. Thus, the user is guided with standard tasks that are usually necessary to be completed during the knowledge transfer process. Further, the user is presented with standard timeframes for completion of the tasks. The user's inputs in response to these prompts control subsequent prompts or form fields presented to the user. The standard tasks and timeframes may also be updated, customized or supplemented to produce an accurate transition plan for each application).
updating the knowledge transfer plan based on the detected activity. (Swam, [29]; The knowledge transfer system may be initiated through the Rapid Transition Suite Home Page 102. The Rapid Transition Suite Home Page 102 provides access to the Knowledge Transfer Plan Wizard ("KTPW") system 104. The Knowledge Transfer Plan Wizard system 104 is a set of form-driven web pages that lead users through processes of creating or updating online transition plans. The forms, in one embodiment, contain text input blocks and other input devices configured to receive user-defined application and user information and Swam, [37]; KTPW System 104 accomplishes this by presenting a series of web pages to the user and directs the user to provide necessary information. The system 104 responds to the user's inputs with further queries tailored to prompt the user to provide additional necessary information that will constitute the Knowledge Transfer Plan 107 for the specific engagement. Thus, the user is guided with standard tasks that are usually necessary to be completed during the knowledge transfer process. Further, the user is presented with standard timeframes for completion of the tasks. The user's inputs in response to these prompts control subsequent prompts or form fields presented to the user. The standard tasks and timeframes may also be updated, customized or supplemented to produce an accurate transition plan for each application and Swam, [81]; the application home page 132 includes a hypertext link or other access to the Knowledge Transfer Plan Wizard system 104. By activating this link and proceeding through the wizard system 104, the knowledge transfer process is updated to reflect schedule changes, progress made and experience obtained.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Swam/Hosabettu teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: analyzing the aggregated meeting summary and external data to identify at least one of employee roles, experiences, or activities associated with the knowledge transfer plan. (Swam, [25]; In the embodiment of FIG. 1, the system 100 includes a Rapid Transition Suite Home Page 102, a Knowledge Transfer Plan Wizard system 104, a set of Knowledge Transfer Best Practices 105, a Knowledge Transfer Template 106, a Knowledge Transfer Plan 107, a Portal Page Creation Process 108, an Engagement Site 110 and information about users and roles 124 and Swam, [77]; The knowledge transfer system integrates a shared repository and collaboration tools for use by the experts and their apprentices. Based on the KTP (provided as input), the system creates a role-specific "portal" for each individual involved in the knowledge transfer process (experts, apprentices and management personnel). The portal provides a unified interface to all resources (knowledge and collaboration tools) that that individual needs in performing his or her role in the knowledge transfer process. In one embodiment, the system is configured with a World Wide Web-based interface and an integrated suite of tools to support knowledge transfer activities on a global basis and Swam, [145]; In one embodiment, a component of the system evaluates knowledge transfer for each role-specific function. In this embodiment, the evaluation is made along a continuum from no knowledge transfer to substantially complete knowledge transfer. Thus, displaying the progress bar provides a substantially real-time, humanly readable output of the evaluation of knowledge transfer and Swam, [155]; In one embodiment, data is extracted from the Excel templates formed by the knowledge transfer wizard system 104, using extensible mark-up language (XML). The data stored in the RTS database 1002 may be stored in any form or format. In the illustrated embodiment, the data defines information such as knowledge areas, users, roles, tasks, a timeline and milestones).
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Swam/Hosabettu/Blohm teaches The method of claim 10, further comprising using the summary of the role to train another person to perform the role. (Swam, [54]; The generic roles may be tailored by operation of the Knowledge Transfer Plan Wizard system 104 in accordance with the particular engagement. For example, for a particular application, there is assigned a knowledge owner, a knowledge recipient and a transition manager. The knowledge owner corresponds to the expert worker of the client. The knowledge recipient corresponds to the apprentice worker of the outsourcing agency. The transition manager is an individual who may be employed by either the client or the outsourcing agency).
Regarding Claim(s) 13, Swam/Hosabettu teaches: The method of claim 12, further comprising communicating the summary of the role to at least one other system, wherein the at least one other system uses the summary of the role to train people, update business systems, or update human resources systems. (Swam, [49]; As an additional feature, in some embodiments, the ASP.NET web applications that are used to create the Knowledge Transfer Plan Wizard can be encapsulated as a Microsoft SharePoint Web Part. This allows the Knowledge Transfer Plan Wizard to be imported into Microsoft SharePoint and used within a SharePoint site. In order to accomplish this, a specific aspect of the SharePoint Object Model is utilized. By using the Microsoft SharePoint Web Part Pages library, additional lines of code are added to the ASP.NET web form used for the Knowledge Transfer Plan Wizard to convert the wizard from a Web Form Control to a Web Part. Namely, the WebPart class and its RenderWebPart( ) and CreateChildControls( ) methods are used to create the KTP Wizard Web Part and Swam, [54]; The generic roles may be tailored by operation of the Knowledge Transfer Plan Wizard system 104 in accordance with the particular engagement. For example, for a particular application, there is assigned a knowledge owner, a knowledge recipient and a transition manager. The knowledge owner corresponds to the expert worker of the client. The knowledge recipient corresponds to the apprentice worker of the outsourcing agency. The transition manager is an individual who may be employed by either the client or the outsourcing agency). Examiner interprets the SharePoint Web Part as another system used to train people.
Claim(s) 5, 9-11, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swaminathan et al. (US 20120047106 A1) herein after referred to as “Swam” in view of Hosabettu et al. (US 20160019485 A1), and Blohm et al. (US 20240346255 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Swam/Hosabettu teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising generating a template associated with the knowledge transfer plan, wherein the template identifies suggested and schedule information associated with the knowledge transfer plan. (Swam, [35-36]; The Knowledge Transfer Templates 106 are the outsourcing agency's standard templates for creating Knowledge Transfer Plans. The templates included in one embodiment cover the following exemplary areas: business processes, methodologies, organizational structure and change management, and project, program, service, relationship and knowledge management. Other areas may be included as well. For each area, the templates provide checklists of typical tasks that need to be accomplished by most knowledge transfer engagements. Examples include but are not limited to tasks such as overview of system architecture, login procedures, system start-up procedures, maintenance and backup procedures etc. The templates may also include standard time frames for the completion of each task… The Knowledge Transfer Plan Templates 106 may be maintained and stored in any format including database tables, HTML or XML pages or spreadsheets. In general, the templates 106 include data and instructions defining tasks, timelines and other information which is suitable for input to the Knowledge Transfer Plan Wizard system 104).
While Swam teaches a template identifying topics, Swam does not appear to explicitly teach the template identifying questions. However, Swam in view of the analogous art of Blohm (i.e. knowledge summarization) does teach the entirety of the limitation: (Blohm, [43]; In response to the instruction 318, the large language model 320 can produce a set of questions and answers 322 pertaining to the “Customer and Partner Solutions” topic 312. The questions and answers 322 can be generated based on the information extracted from the knowledge base 304 by the summarization module 302. For example, as shown in FIG. 3A, the questions and answers 322 can provide additional basic information that supplements the previously generated definition 220 such as key people and facts).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Swam including a template identifying suggested topics with the teachings of Blohm including identifying questions in order to automatically populate a topic with essential information (Blohm, [44]; the topic 312 can be automatically populated with essential information thereby eliminating much of the manual effort required to organize content into a readable entry of the knowledge base 304. In addition, synthesizing information in this way enables a user to quickly familiarize themselves with a topic 312 without manually sifting through content).
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Swam/Hosabettu teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the summary of the meeting is generated by… that processes a recording of the meeting between the first person and the second person. (Swam, [113]; the expert may respond to the apprentice by initiating a screen capture. During the screen capture session, the expert manipulates his personal computer to perform the task. The display is captured along with the expert's voiceover narration, if provided. The captured screen display is conveyed to the apprentice who plays back the captured session and sees an example of task completion. The captured session may be played back repeatedly by the apprentice or by other apprentices to reinforce the knowledge transfer and Swam, [140]; The tasks area 704 includes a list of tasks to be completed for completion of knowledge transfer for an application. Each task in the list is displayed as a link to a web page providing additional information about that task. Displayed in the tasks area is summary information for each task, including the task title, the user to which the task is assigned and task status).
While Swam teaches a meeting summary of a meeting between a first and second person and generating transcripts, Swam does not appear to teach the use of a large language model to generate summaries. However, Swam in view of the analogous art of Blohm (i.e. topic summarization) does teach the use of a large language model (Blohm, [11]; In a first example of the technical benefit of the present disclosure, utilizing a large language model for generating knowledge base content can enable seamless integration of information across multiple disparate sources (e.g., a webpage, a design document, and a video) and Blohm, [09]; The retrieved information can be accordingly utilized by the summarization module along with the initialization request to generate an instruction for the large language model. Commonly refer