DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to the amendment filed 09/26/2025.
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, 2, 4 have been amended. Claims 1-6 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 09/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant submits that Sanger does not specifically disclose the amended limitations of the claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Sander discloses these limitations in at least [0008-0010]; [0048].
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) 1-6 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 1-6, the independent claims (claims 1, 2 and 4) are directed, in part, to a computer and a method for executive decision support. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claim 1 is directed to a computer, which falls under the statutory category of a machine and claims 2-6 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to providing executive decision support, said computer comprising: a processor and memory, the memory including a database of company information relating to company resources, the processor having software for a plurality of users associated with the company to enter information into the database including scored ratings of a plurality of company categories and distinctions; a display; and software for generating a plurality of markers and arranging the markers on the display representing the company resources in a hierarchy. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” 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: computer, processor, memory, display, software. 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 2 and related text and [0027-0029] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “Computer system 210 includes bus 212 which interconnects major subsystems of computer system 210, such as central processor 214,system memory 217 (typically RAM, but which may also include ROM, flash RAM, or the like), input/output controller 218, external audio device, such as speaker system 220 via audio output interface 222, external device, such as display screen 224 via display adapter 226,serial ports 228 and 230,keyboard 232 (interfaced with keyboard controller 233),storage interface 234,disk drive 237 operative to receive floppy disk 238 (disk drive 237 is used to represent various type of removable memory such as flash drives, memory sticks and the like), host bus adapter (HBA) interface card 235A operative to connect with Fibre Channel network 290,host bus adapter (HBA) interface card 235B operative to connect to SCSI bus 239, and optical disk drive 240 operative to receive optical disk 242. Also included are mouse 246 (or other point-and-click device, coupled to bus 212 via serial port 228),modem 247 (coupled to bus 212 via serial port 230), and network interface 248 (coupled directly to bus 212). Bus 212 allows data communication between central processor 214 and system memory 217, which may include read-only memory (ROM) or flash memory (neither shown), and random access memory (RAM) (not shown), as previously noted.RAM is generally the main memory into which operating system and application programs are loaded. ROM or flash memory may contain, among other software code, Basic Input-Output system (BIOS) which controls basic hardware operation such as interaction with peripheral components. Applications resident with computer system 210 are generally stored on and accessed via computer readable media, such as hard disk drives (e.g., fixed disk 244), optical drives (e.g., optical drive 240),floppy disk unit 237, or other storage medium. Additionally, applications may be in the form of electronic signals modulated in accordance with the application and data communication technology when accessed via network modem 247 or interface 248 or other telecommunications equipment (not shown). Storage interface 234, as with other storage interfaces of computer system 210, may connect to standard computer readable media for storage and/or retrieval of information, such as fixed disk drive 244.Fixed disk drive 244 may be part of computer system 210 or may be separate and accessed through other interface systems. Modem 247 may provide direct connection to remote servers via telephone link or the Internet via an internet service provider (ISP) (not shown). Network interface 248 may provide direct connection to remote servers via direct network link to the Internet via a POP (point of presence). Network interface 248 may provide such connection using wireless techniques, including digital cellular telephone connection, Cellular Digital Packet Data (CDPD) connection, digital satellite data connection or the like.” 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2016/0171425 (hereinafter; Sanger).
Regarding claim 1, Sanger discloses:
A computer for providing executive decision support, said computer comprising: a processor and memory, the memory including a database of company information relating to company resources, the processor having software for a plurality of users associated with the company to enter information into the database including scored ratings of a plurality of company categories and distinctions; (Sanger [0008] discloses a system for workforce virtualization planning for an organization comprises a computing platform including computing hardware of at least one processor, data storage, an operating system implemented on the computing hardware, a display interface, and input/output facilities; instructions that, when executed on the computing platform, cause the computing platform to implement a user interface configured to present workforce virtualization planning data to a user via the display interface of the computing hardware, a schedule tracking module configured to monitor completeness of a workforce virtualization plan, a planning module configured to present, using the user interface, a plurality of phases of the workforce virtualization plan as monitored by the schedule tracking module, an enterprise resource planning (ERP) interface configured to interface to a traditional ERP system maintained by the organization, the traditional ERP system including organizational data, a location module configured to provide geographic information system (GIS) data from a GIS server, a job information module configured to provide job class data and job hierarchy data, a modeling module configured to model a proposed deployment plan against one or more scenarios, and a competitive intelligence module configured to aggregate and process the organizational data, the GIS data, the job class data, the job hierarchy data, and the modeled proposed deployment plan to generate a workforce virtualization plan. Sanger discloses input/output facilities, see at least [0008-0010]; [0048].) a display; and software for generating a plurality of markers and arranging the markers on the display representing the company resources in a hierarchy. (Sanger [0079-0080] disclose As depicted in FIG. 11, each scenario can comprise one or more component scenarios that can be defined independently. In an embodiment, component scenarios can include job class deployment 64, finance 66, human resources 68, tele-work configuration 70, continuity 254, and travel demand management 72. During scenario definition 402, user interface 202 can present options to the user to modify data items within each component scenario on a modeling screen 62. A modeling screen 62 can be seen in FIG. 12 and FIG. 13. Multiple proposed scenarios can be developed for each component scenario; Modeling module 218 can calculate deployment targets such as number of workers deployed, facility use reduction, business continuity restoration time, deployment cost, and deployment savings for each possible combination of proposed scenarios for each component scenario. In an embodiment, user interface 202 can display the results of each combination to the user.)
Regarding claim 4, Sanger discloses:
A method of evaluating a company resource comprising: determining the resource's ability to generate value for the Company; determining the scarcity of the resource; and determining the Company's ability to repeatedly use the resource, and iteratively updating the determinations of the preceding steps to generate and display an updated graphical display of an executive focus roadmap based on the determinations of the preceding steps. (Sanger [0080] discloses Modeling module 218 can calculate deployment targets such as number of workers deployed, facility use reduction, business continuity restoration time, deployment cost, and deployment savings for each possible combination of proposed scenarios for each component scenario. In an embodiment, user interface 202 can display the results of each combination to the user. In embodiments, the user can select the recommended master scenario 74 based on the combination of component scenarios that best meets the goals of the organization. Sanger discloses iteratively updating information as new data is provided, see at least [0072].)
Regarding claim 5, Sanger discloses:
The method of Claim 4 further including using a plurality of items representing each resource, and a plurality of numerical values associated with each of the determining steps is provided on each item. (Sanger [0009] discloses a machine-implemented method for business continuity planning for an organization with a computer system, the computing system including computing hardware of at least one processor, data storage, an operating system implemented on the computing hardware, a display interface, and input/output facilities, the method being executed by the computer system comprises executing a geographic information system (GIS) server configured to provide location data; identifying a plurality of threats to business continuity to the organization using at least the location data to identify an impact area relative to worker locations for each of the plurality of threats; ordering the plurality of threats according to the highest risk to business continuity to the organization, wherein the ordering is conducted automatically by the computing hardware according to at least a number of organizational facilities impacted by the threat, a number of workers impacted by the threat, an impact cost of the threat, and a probability of the threat occurring; generating a response plan to at least one of the ordered plurality of threats, wherein the response plan includes computing equipment needs for a plurality of worker profiles; and deploying computing equipment resources according to the computing equipment needs for each of the workers matching the plurality of worker profiles.)
Regarding claim 6, Sanger discloses:
The method of Claim 5 wherein rules are used to arrange the items according to the numerical values. (Sanger [0097] discloses Threats can be identified based on data from location module 214, competitive intelligence module 210, or directly from the user via user interface 202. In embodiments, threats can be profiled to determine which threats pose the highest risk to the organization. Factors used to determine threat risk can include the number of organization facilities and workers potentially impacted by a single threat, the cost of potential impacts of a single threat, and the probability of the threat occurring.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2014/0075004 (hereinafter; Van Dusen) in view of Sanger.
Regarding claim 2, although Sanger discloses systems and methods for decision support, Sanger does not specifically disclose a roadmap with comments or ratings. However, Van Dusen discloses the following limitations:
A method of using a computer to provide executive decision support with an executive focus roadmap display, said method comprising the steps of: identifying the components of each category of resource and listed/commented upon by one or more individuals in the company; rating each resource for its competitive importance; displaying the resources with ratings and comments on a plurality of markers, the markers arranged in a hierarchy to provide a graphical display of markers to facilitate executive focus on key resources. (Van Dusen [0603] discloses The objective with topic maps, as it is with the infrastructure info-items here, is to achieve a one-to-one relationship between topics and the subjects that they represent. Identity by indicators enables mergers for topic maps as it does for the infrastructure txos here. Before topic map merger, the same subject may be represented by more than one topic. It is crucially important to know when two txos represent the same tpx when aggregating information (for example, cncpttrrts, purlieus, information resources, or scopxs from a private CMM into the central CMMDB); See also [0727]; [0252].)
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 workforce virtualization system of Sanger with the mapping system of Van Dusen in order to determine flaws in models and predictions (Van Dusen 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.
and, iteratively updating ratings of the categories to generate and display an updated graphical display of the executive focus roadmap. (Sanger discloses iteratively updating information as new data is provided, see at least [0072].)
Regarding claim 3, Sanger discloses:
The method of Claim 2, wherein the plurality of individual review and revise each marker to more closely reflect the consensus view, occasionally altering the hierarchy. (Sanger [0044-0045] disclose policy reviews, A policy review and development phase 108 can modify or create organizational policies in order to support the optimal deployment plan. A virtualization implementation process phase 110 can execute the deployment plan. Finally, a monitoring and refinement phase 112 can track actual performance against the deployment plan and modify the plan or policies as needed.)
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