Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 06/10/2026.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/10/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-16, 18-19, 21 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant submits on pages 12-13 of the remarks that the claims should not be found ineligible under Step 2A Prong One. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that under step 2A of the analysis of claims per the Alice framework, if a claim limitation covers business relations, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, as explained in the instant office action, the Examiner notes that the amended limitations fall within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant submits on pages 14-18 that the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the present claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a matter that imposes meaningful limit to the judicial exception.
Applicant submits on pages 19-20 of the remarks that the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional elements in the claims are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10, 12-16, 18-19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-16, 18-19, 21, the independent claims (claims 1, 10 and 16) are directed, in part, to methods and systems for tracking revenue performance. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1, 3-8, 21 are directed to a system which falls under the statutory category of a machine, claims 10, 12-15 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process and claims 16, 18-19 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes business relations and mathematical concepts because they include mathematical formulas or equations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to receiving past and current data on performance metrics, activity metrics, competency metrics, and execution/engagement metrics for each of a plurality of sales representatives for an organization; training a model to predict a potential revenue attainment based on the received past data; calculating, by the trained model, the potential revenue attainment for each of the plurality of sale representatives based on the received current data; selecting one representative from the plurality of sales representatives; determining, by the trained model, a quantitative impact value for each performance metric, on the potential revenue attainment for the one representative; in response to determining the quantitative impact value for each performance metric, identifying a single performance metric having maximum impact value on the potential revenue attainment for the one representative relative to the other performance metrics; subsequent to identifying the single performance metric having a maximum impact value, performing a correlation analysis between each of the activity metrics, competency metrics, and execution/engagement metrics and the performance metrics to determine a correlation coefficient between each of the activity metrics, competency metrics, and execution/engagement metrics and the performance metrics; If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, business relations, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the amended claim limitations recite: wherein identifying a single activity metric, competency metric, or execution/engagement metric having the most impact on the identified single performance metric for the one representative comprises determining a maximum value for: D x (A-B), where D = correlation coefficient between an activity metric, a competency metric, or an execution/engagement metric and an identified performance metric, A = benchmark value of the activity metric, the competency metric, or the execution/engagement metric, and B = value of the activity metric, the competency metric, or the execution/engagement metric for the one representative. These limitations are directed to the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas because they include mathematical formulas or equations”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements: revenue performance system, processor, computer readable medium, trained model, non-transitory computer readable medium. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1 and 4, related text and [0061-0064] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “Referring now to FIG. 4, illustrated is a block diagram of a system 400 suitable for implementing embodiments of the present disclosure. System 400, such as part of a computer and/or a network server, includes a bus 402 or other communication mechanism for communicating information, which interconnects subsystems and components, including one or more of a processing component 404 (e.g., processor, micro-controller, digital signal processor (DSP), etc.), a system memory component 406 (e.g., RAM), a static storage component 408 (e.g., ROM), a network interface component 412, a display component 414 (or alternatively, an interface to an external display), an input component 416 (e.g., keypad or keyboard), and a cursor control component 418 (e.g., a mouse pad). Logic may be encoded in a computer readable medium, which may refer to any medium that participates in providing instructions to processor 404 for execution. Such a medium may take many forms, including but not limited to, non-volatile media, volatile media, and transmission media. In various implementations, volatile media includes dynamic memory, such as system memory component 406, and transmission media includes coaxial cables, copper wire, and fiber optics, including wires that comprise bus 402. Memory may be used to store visual representations of the different options for searching or auto-synchronizing. In one example, transmission media may take the form of acoustic or light waves, such as those generated during radio wave and infrared data communications. Some common forms of computer readable media include, for example, RAM, PROM, EPROM, FLASH-EPROM, any other memory chip or cartridge, carrier wave, or any other medium from which a computer is adapted to read. In various embodiments of the disclosure, execution of instruction sequences to practice the disclosure may be performed by system 400. In various other embodiments, a plurality of systems 400 coupled by communication link 420 (e.g., LAN, WLAN, PTSN, or various other wired or wireless networks) may perform instruction sequences to practice the disclosure in coordination with one another. Computer system 400 may transmit and receive messages, data, information and instructions, including one or more programs (i.e., application code) through communication link 420 and communication interface 412. Received program code may be executed by processor 404 as received and/or stored in disk drive component 410 or some other non-volatile storage component for execution.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-16, 18-19, 21 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above. Although the prior art made of record discloses systems and methods for tracking performance metrics and prevent potential revenues based on historic data, the prior art does not specifically disclose the sequence of steps: “…providing one or more recommendations for the one representative on an interactive sales dashboard based on the identified single activity metric, competency metric, or execution/engagement metric; receiving, via the interactive sales dashboard, a selection of a coaching or training session for the one representative; and in response to receiving the selection, automatically assigning the coaching or training session to the one representative, wherein identifying a single activity metric, competency metric, or execution/engagement metric having the most impact on the identified single performance metric for the one representative comprises determining a maximum value for: D x (A-B),where D = correlation coefficient between an activity metric, a competency metric, or an execution/engagement metric and an identified performance metric, A = benchmark value of the activity metric, the competency metric, or the execution/engagement metric, and B = value of the activity metric, the competency metric, or the execution/engagement metric for the one representative…” as recited in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm EST.
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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
