Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is a Final Office Action in response to the amendment filed 09/25/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 10-19 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 09/25/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant submits on pages 11-16 of the remarks that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner notes that according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG) and 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.
Applicant submits on pages 16-17 of the remarks that the claims features amount 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 submits on page 21 of the remarks that the claims are patentable over Tepper and Grady. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the amended features of the claims are disclosed by Tepper. See at least Tepper [0044] and Tables 3-4.
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) 1-8, 10-19 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 1-8, 10-19, 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 1-8 are directed to a system which falls under the statutory category of a machine, claims 10-15 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process and claims 16-19 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.
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. 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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10, 12-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2009/0319344 (hereinafter; Tepper) in view of US Pub. No. 2017/0236081 (hereinafter; Grady).
Regarding claims 1/10/16, Tepper discloses:
A revenue performance system comprising: a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions stored in association therewith that are accessible to, and executable by, the processor, to perform operations which comprise; A method of generating insights for increasing revenue, which comprises; A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions executable by a processor to perform operations which comprise: (Tepper [0001] discloses techniques for assessing sales force personnel and techniques for improving individual and organizational sales performance based on such assessments.)
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; (Tepper [0003] discloses performance; [0006] discloses assessing sales force personnel in furtherance of individual sales person and overall sales force performance improvement. To this end, personality assessment data, behavior assessment data and competency assessment data is obtained for a sales person, in one embodiment, via a computer-implemented interface; [0017] discloses behavior assessment data relates to sales activities; Table 3 discloses execution of sales and engagement. Table 4 discloses historical revenue performance, current sales and market.)
calculating, by the trained model, the potential revenue attainment for each of the plurality of sale representatives based on the received current data; (Tepper Table 2 discloses predicting the value and time to realization of future revenues and/or margin streams.)
selecting one representative from the plurality of sales representatives; (Tepper Table 4 discloses Hiring Top Talent: Identifies skills and competencies required in the role to be filled and excels at selecting and hiring job candidates who meet and exceed these criteria.)
determining, by the trained model, a quantitative impact value of each performance metric on the potential revenue attainment for the one representative; (Tepper Tables 2 and 4 describe competencies and their impact on short term and long term decisions and actions; [0042] discloses evaluating quantitative performance.)
in response to determining the quantitative impact value for each performance metric, identifying a single performance metric having a maximum impact value on the potential revenue attainment for the one representative relative to the other performance metrics; (Tepper [0006] discloses The resulting overall individual assessment data is then compared with high sales performer benchmark data to identify performance improvement opportunities that, in turn, are used to identify at least one specific action for the sales person; Reports based on the assessment results and comparisons thereof with high sales performer benchmark data may be created and provided to the individuals being assessed or persons associated with the individual sales persons.)
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; (Tepper [0053] discloses correlating and identifying characteristics with high sales performance.)
identifying, based on the correlation coefficients, a single activity metric, competency metric, or execution/engagement metric having the most impact on the identified single performance metric for the one representative; (Tepper Tables 3-4 disclose impact on the business.)
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. (Tepper [0044] discloses Based on the identified performance improvement opportunities, one or more specific actions may also be identified for the individual (or group) at block 408. Such specific actions, when carried out, are selected to help the individual (or group) improve performance in the specifically identified assessment aspects. On an individual level, such actions may include, but are not limited to, specific coaching, methods for improving efficiency through the use of technology, particular training courses, etc.)
Although Tepper discloses a revenue performance system, Tepper does not specifically disclose using and training a model or providing recommendations. However, Grady discloses the following limitations:
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; (Grady [0064] discloses generating recommendations. See also [0151]; [0171-0172]; [0203.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for assessment of sales force personnel of Tepper with the system for making organizational decisions of Grady in order to make more accurate and realistic decisions based on people involvement (Grady Abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claim 3, Although Tepper discloses a revenue performance system, Tepper does not specifically disclose using and training a model or a plurality of organizations. However, Grady discloses the following limitations:
The revenue performance system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: 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 a plurality of organizations; training a second model to predict a potential revenue attainment based on the received past data for the plurality of organizations; calculating, by the trained second model, the potential revenue attainment for each of the plurality of sale representatives based on the received current data for the plurality of organizations; selecting a second representative from the plurality of sales representatives; determining, by the second trained model, an impact of each performance metric, activity metric, competency metric, and execution/engagement metric on the potential revenue attainment for the second representative; identifying a second performance metric having the most impact on the potential revenue attainment for the second representative; determining a correlation coefficient between each of the activity metrics, each of the competency metrics, and each of the execution/engagement metrics, and the identified second performance metric for the second representative; identifying one of the activity metrics, the competency metrics, or the execution/engagement metrics having the most impact on the identified second performance metric for the second representative based on the correlation coefficients; and providing one or more recommendations for the second representative on an interactive sales dashboard based on the identified one activity metric, competency metric, or execution/engagement metric. (Grady [0054-0059] disclose models of organizations.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for assessment of sales force personnel of Tepper with the system for making organizational decisions of Grady in order to make more accurate and realistic decisions based on people involvement (Grady Abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 4/12/18, Tepper discloses:
The revenue performance system of claim 1; The method of claim 10; The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the operations further comprise: preparing a graph of potential revenue attainment versus actual revenue attainment for the plurality of sales representatives; and displaying the graph on the interactive sales dashboard. (Tepper See Fig. 1, [0003].)
Regarding claims 5/13, Tepper discloses:
The revenue performance system of claim 4; The method of claim 12, wherein the graph groups the plurality of sales representatives into high performers, high potential performers, outliers, and performers needing development. (Tepper See Fig. 1, [0003].)
Regarding claims 6/14, Tepper discloses:
The revenue performance system of claim 5; The method of claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, via the interactive sales dashboard, a selection of a group of sales representatives from the graph; and in response to receiving the selection, identifying common traits in the group that leads to high or low performance, displaying additional information regarding the group, or both. (Tepper [0017] discloses the aggregated data may be provided according to specific organizational groupings, e.g., by specific sales function, region, product line, etc. See also [0019] By way of non-limiting illustrative example, such reports may include individual reports for the personality, competency and behavior assessments, or similar aggregated assessment data across any desired personnel grouping.)
Regarding claim 7, Tepper discloses:
The revenue performance system of claim 4, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, via the interactive sales dashboard, a selection of a group of sales representatives from the graph; and in response to receiving the selection, displaying additional information regarding the group. (Tepper [0016] discloses The user interface generation component 203, using known programming techniques, may provide one or more display screens that can be rendered on one of more of the user terminals 208 as a means for obtaining assessment data from a user of a corresponding terminal 208. The display screens may take the form of a survey questionnaire as illustrated in FIGS. 6-10. Note that the particular content of the display screens may be customized as desired.)
Regarding claims 8/15/19, Tepper discloses:
The revenue performance system of claim 1; The method of claim 10; The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the one or more recommendations comprises assigning a coaching or training session to the one representative. (Tepper [0044] discloses Based on the identified performance improvement opportunities, one or more specific actions may also be identified for the individual (or group) at block 408. Such specific actions, when carried out, are selected to help the individual (or group) improve performance in the specifically identified assessment aspects. On an individual level, such actions may include, but are not limited to, specific coaching, methods for improving efficiency through the use of technology, particular training courses, etc.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2/11/17 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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