DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 3 June 2026.
Claims 1, 3 – 9, and 11 – 20 are presented for examination.
The following is a FINAL office action upon examination of application number 18/534345. Claims 1, 3 – 9, and 11 – 20 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 3 June 2026, Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, and 17. Applicant cancelled claims 2 and 10.
Amendments to claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, and 17 are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection. Therefore, the 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims 1, 3 – 9, and 11 – 20 are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks regarding independent claims 1, 9, and 17, Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the newly amended claim limitations. Examiner agrees. The prior art rejection is withdrawn.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that claims do not recite abstract ideas without significantly more. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims recite steps using generic technology to perform otherwise abstract functions such as generating an initiative, transmitting a request for a scorecard, receiving the scorecard, receiving a request for creating configuration information for the initiative, creating the configuration information for the initiative, transmitting configuration information, transmitting project progress data of the initiative, transmitting the scorecard, and transmitting revised action steps for the initiative. These steps do not require nor are they rooted in technology. One can perform all these steps mentally or with pen to paper. The GUI and the server claimed are merely tools on which the method operates. There is no claim to any other use of them. Beyond a mental process, these functional limitations claimed also fit into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, as claims describe the use of score carding and KPI evaluation. These types of functions are commercial activity, which is a subcategory of certain methods of organizing human activity, regardless if technology is utilized generically to implement these otherwise abstract functions in the claims. The specification describing a scenario where the Applicant’s situation does not allow sharing data among enterprise tools and operating business units as silos does not change the standard definition of the generic technology claimed. Determining a bottleneck prior to it occurring is merely the narrowing of the abstract idea. Those steps do not improve technology or a technical field or to the functioning of a computer. Generating a real-time scorecard and outputting latent bottlenecks can be performed completely manually, and utilizing computer technology to do so is a situation of “apply it.” This is not a technical requirement, so it is not a practical application.
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, 3 – 9, and 11 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The independent claims recite generating an initiative comprising action steps to be performed for implementing the initiative, transmitting a request for a strategic dashboard scorecard, receiving a strategic dashboard scorecard responsive to transmitting the request, wherein the strategic dashboard scorecard comprises a business capability for a key performance measure (KPM), data associated with the business capability for the KPM, and the initiative, receiving a second request for creating configuration for the initiative, wherein the configuration information for the initiative comprises a KPM corresponding to at least one business capability, a performance measurement score for the KPM, a scoring factor applied to the initiative, and a scoring value derived for the initiative based on the scoring factor, creating the configuration information for the initiative in response to receiving the request, and transmit the configuration information, receiving the initiative, transmitting project progress data of the initiative wherein the project progress data comprises performance data that is obtained during implementation of the initiative, obtaining a dashboard template, determining a scoring factor for obtaining a scoring value for a project process data, assigning a scoring value for the initiative based on the scoring factor, inputting the scoring value to the dashboard template to obtain the strategic dashboard scorecard, transmitting the strategic dashboard scorecard in response to the request for it, analyzing at least one of the project process data or the data associated with the business capability for the KPM, transmitting revised action steps for a second initiative whereby the revised action steps permit the enterprise to avoid delays in implementing the second initiative, obtaining a dashboard template, determining a scoring factor for obtaining a scoring value for a project process data, and inputting the data into the dashboard template to obtain the strategic dashboard scorecard, wherein the scoring factor interrelates a level of effort (LOE) expended by at least one business capability toward action steps of the initiative with a level of impact (LOI) of the initiative on the KPM of the enterprise, and wherein automatically transmitting the one or more revised action steps for the second initiative comprises: identifying, by the strategic performance measurement server, a bottleneck in the second initiative based on the analysis of the project progress data of the initiative: and reallocating resources assigned to action steps of the second initiative in the enterprise tool to eliminate the identified bottleneck. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance section 2106 of the MPEP (hereinafter, MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the systems and the method are directed to an eligible categories of subject matter. Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A prong 1 of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of scorecard and KPI evaluation, as these are commercial interactions, which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106. The claimed invention also recites an abstract idea that falls within the mental processes grouping, as independent claims recite receiving, assigning, obtaining, and analyzing steps. The limitations reciting the abstract idea in independent claims are generating an initiative comprising action steps to be performed for implementing the initiative, transmitting a request for a strategic dashboard scorecard, receiving a strategic dashboard scorecard responsive to transmitting the request, wherein the strategic dashboard scorecard comprises a business capability for a key performance measure (KPM), data associated with the business capability for the KPM, and the initiative, receiving a second request for creating configuration for the initiative, wherein the configuration information for the initiative comprises a KPM corresponding to at least one business capability, a performance measurement score for the KPM, a scoring factor applied to the initiative, and a scoring value derived for the initiative based on the scoring factor, creating the configuration information for the initiative in response to receiving the request, and transmit the configuration information, receiving the initiative, transmitting project progress data of the initiative wherein the project progress data comprises performance data that is obtained during implementation of the initiative, obtaining a dashboard template, determining a scoring factor for obtaining a scoring value for a project process data, assigning a scoring value for the initiative based on the scoring factor, inputting the scoring value to the dashboard template to obtain the strategic dashboard scorecard, transmitting the strategic dashboard scorecard in response to the request for it, analyzing at least one of the project process data or the data associated with the business capability for the KPM, transmitting revised action steps for a second initiative whereby the revised action steps permit the enterprise to avoid delays in implementing the second initiative, obtaining a dashboard template, determining a scoring factor for obtaining a scoring value for a project process data, and inputting the data into the dashboard template to obtain the strategic dashboard scorecard, wherein the scoring factor interrelates a level of effort (LOE) expended by at least one business capability toward action steps of the initiative with a level of impact (LOI) of the initiative on the KPM of the enterprise, and wherein automatically transmitting the one or more revised action steps for the second initiative comprises: identifying, by the strategic performance measurement server, a bottleneck in the second initiative based on the analysis of the project progress data of the initiative: and reallocating resources assigned to action steps of the second initiative in the enterprise tool to eliminate the identified bottleneck.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to user equipment, graphical user interface, an enterprise tool, servers, and strategic performance measurement application, to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: user equipment, graphical user interface, an enterprise tool, servers, and strategic performance measurement application. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and it is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
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. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional 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 the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of overriding scoring values, receiving user input for selecting indicator flags when initiative completed, and obtaining progress data/template/scoring rules, by way of examples, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claims) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AMANDA GURSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7am to 5pm 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.
/AMANDA GURSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights