DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to papers filed on 12/10/2025.
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 .
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, while the claims herein are directed to a method and/or system, which could be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes), 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.
Regarding claims 1, 11, the claims recite, in part, automatically collect relevant internal and external data at a plurality of points along a product launch plan execution path associated with a project to innovate, develop, and launch a product, the relevant data being selected from the group consisting of project scope, project tasks, project management, project risks, project quality, budget, resources, resource allocation, project team members, project team communications, project milestones, project timeline, project status, product launch plan, market trends, economic trends, competitive landscape, legal and regulatory environment, consumer behavior, consumer preferences, customer feedback, and social media; automatically receiving the relevant internal and external data, analyzing the relevant internal and external data to identify emerging vulnerabilities and issues associated with the project, and determining corrective recommendations; and generating and transmitting notification messages to project team members and stakeholders regarding the identified vulnerabilities, issues, and the corrective recommendations.
The limitations, as drafted and detailed above, recites collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (directly mimicking the Electric Power Group court decision), which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and more specifically business relations. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of AI-assisted (claims 1, 11, merely implemented at an “apply it” level), risk detection system (claim 1), intelligent data trackers (claims 1, 11, and the “installing” thereof, Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines “intelligent” as “guided or controlled by a computer”, which merely represents programming), data analysis module (claim 1)¸ notification module (claim 1), and artificial intelligence (claim 11, merely implemented at an “apply it” level). The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of collecting, receiving, analyzing, determining, generating, and transmitting) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There are no additional functional limitations to be considered under prong two.
Accordingly, the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using AI-assisted (claims 1, 11, merely implemented at an “apply it” level), risk detection system (claim 1), intelligent data trackers (claims 1, 11, and the “installing” thereof, Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines “intelligent” as “guided or controlled by a computer”, which merely represents programming), data analysis module (claim 1)¸ notification module (claim 1), and artificial intelligence (claim 11, merely implemented at an “apply it” level) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent- eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat' l Ass' n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computer (see Applicant specification Figure 12, Paragraph 0065, actual computer components do not appear to be referenced in the specification and the description of the platform appears to be merely software that could be implemented on any general purpose computer); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
The dependent claims 2-10, 12-20 appear to merely limit providing a visual interface, generation of reports, generation of high-level risk notification messages, monitoring of the implementation of corrective recommendations, collection of data along critical points of a project or a product launch, specifics of the data trackers, and providing of an admin interface, and therefore only limit the application of the idea, and not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The AI-assisted (claims 1, 11, merely implemented at an “apply it” level), risk detection system (claim 1), intelligent data trackers (claims 1, 11, and the “installing” thereof, Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines “intelligent” as “guided or controlled by a computer”, which merely represents programming), data analysis module (claim 1)¸ notification module (claim 1), and artificial intelligence (claim 11, merely implemented at an “apply it” level) are each functional generic computer components that perform the generic functions of collecting, receiving, analyzing, determining, generating, and transmitting, all common to electronics and computer systems.
Applicant's specification does not provide any indication that the AI-assisted (claims 1, 11, merely implemented at an “apply it” level), risk detection system (claim 1), intelligent data trackers (claims 1, 11, and the “installing” thereof, Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines “intelligent” as “guided or controlled by a computer”, which merely represents programming), data analysis module (claim 1)¸ notification module (claim 1), and artificial intelligence (claim 11, merely implemented at an “apply it” level) are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jain (U.S. Pub No. 2023/0065424). Jain teaches a system and method of risk detection that includes all of the limitations recited in the above claims.
Regarding claim 1, 11, Jain teaches Installing a plurality of “intelligent” data trackers configured to be automatically installed at a plurality of points along a product launch plan execution path (Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines “automatic” as “having a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism” and “done or produced as if by machine”, which means that any software of a computer is designed to be “automatic”, if software is involved in any way, the step is taken to be performed “automatically”, Paragraph 0066, “Data aggregation module 402 identifies the number and types of metrics to customize the metrics to be monitored and tracked for a project in an organization…data aggregation module 402 may adjust a measuring interval in a formula to change the calculation of a metric” represents data trackers installed at a plurality of points along a product launch plan execution path) to collect relevant internal and external data associated with a project to innovate, develop, and launch a product, the relevant data being selected from the group consisting of project scope, project tasks, project management, project risks, project quality, budget, resources, resource allocation, project team members, project team communications, project milestones, project timeline, project status, product launch plan, market trends, economic trends, competitive landscape, legal and regulatory environment, consumer behavior, consumer preferences, customer feedback, and social media (Paragraphs 0059-0064, 0066, any software that collects the data is a “data tracker”, Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines “intelligent” as “guided or controlled by a computer” which merely represents software or programming, the language “to innovate, develop, and launch a product” is not actively claimed and merely represents intended use that is not actively required by the claim language, data is both internal metrics and external feedback); automatically receiving the relevant internal and external data collected by the “intelligent” data trackers, analyzing the relevant data using artificial intelligence to predictively identify emerging vulnerabilities and issues associated with the project, and determining corrective recommendations (Paragraphs 0088-0089, “The AI/ML models can be trained based on different metrics and parameters periodically (e.g., month on month) to predict the course of a project”, “a continuous data-insight-action loop is established to improve project health and reduce project risks”); and generating and transmitting notification messages to project team members and stakeholders regarding the identified vulnerabilities, issues, and the corrective recommendations (Paragraph 0084).
Regarding claims 2, 12, Jain teaches providing a visual interface for use by project team members and stakeholders regarding the identified vulnerabilities, issues, and the corrective recommendations (Paragraphs 0050, 0076).
Regarding claims 3, 13, Jain teaches generating and providing detailed reports regarding the identified vulnerabilities, issues, and corrective recommendations (Paragraphs 0047, 0050, 0075-0076, 0079).
Regarding claims 4, 14, Jain teaches automatically generating and transmitting risk notification messages to project members and stakeholders regarding identified vulnerabilities, issues, and corrective recommendations (Paragraphs 0049, 0084).
Regarding claims 5, 15, Jain teaches automatically monitoring that the corrective recommended actions are being implemented (Paragraphs 0059-0064, the project is continually monitored, meaning that implemented corrective actions are monitored by way of the data that is continually collected).
Regarding claims 6, 16, Jain teaches installing the “intelligent” data trackers to collect relevant internal and external data along a plurality of critical points along a project implementation path (Paragraphs 0033-0034, claim 6).
Regarding claims 7, 17, Jain teaches installing the “intelligent” data trackers to collect relevant internal and external data along a plurality of critical points along a product launch plan execution path and at interfaces with external relevant data sources (Paragraphs 0033-0034, claim 6).
Regarding claims 9, 19, Jain teaches installing “intelligent” data trackers having localized intelligence to make localized decisions based on localized interpretation and analysis of collected relevant internal and external data (Paragraphs 0088-0089, Applicant’s specification at paragraph 0047 indicate that the localized intelligence of the data trackers is equivalent to Artificial Intelligence).
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.
Claims 8, 10, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (U.S. Pub No. 2023/0065424).
Regarding claims 8, 18, Jain teaches installing “intelligent” data trackers including application programming interfaces (APIs), and other external data feeds and data channels (Paragraphs 0049-0050).
Jain does not appear to specifically mention Electronic data interchanges (EDIs). However, EDIs have been old and well known within the realm of data collection long before the filing of Applicant’s invention. In 1996, the National Institute of Standards and Technology defined electronic data interchange as the computer-to-computer interchange of a standardized format for data exchange. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at effective filing date of the invention to also use EDIs since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 10, 20, Jain teaches providing a user interface (Paragraphs 0050, 0076). Jain further teaches the data aggregation module as initializing and implementing the internal and external data trackers (Paragraph 0061).
Jain does not appear to specify providing a user interface enabling use by at least one administrator to initialize and implement the data trackers. However, administrator interfaces for initializing the functioning of programs have been old and well known long before the filing of Applicant’s invention. Google Workspace is one example of many that has a dashboard interface for admin to manage their organization’s Google Workspace accounts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at effective filing date of the invention to include an administrator interface to initialize the system in order to ensure that administrators retain control and the ability to focus the collection of data on the areas that are deemed by the administrator to be most important.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “According to the MPEP, the methods of organizing human activity includes "social activity, teaching, and following rules or instructions." Claims 1-20 do not recite any activity, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Nor do claims 1-20 recite managing personal behavior, managing personal relationships, or managing interactions between people. The only point where humans enter into the picture is when they are notified of vulnerabilities or issues”. However, the claims at issues clearly recite business relations with respect to product launch, and therefore squarely within the realm of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Further, as explained in the rejection above, the claims also do nothing more than collect information, analyze it, and display certain results of the collection and analysis, which was already found to be ineligible in the Electric Power Group decision.
Applicant argues “the technological problem is described in the Background portion of the Application”. However, the background of the instant application merely discusses broad general business improvements relating to market needs and budget limitations. If there are any improvements envisioned by the application, they are to the abstract idea, and not the additional elements. In the SAP decision (See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), the courts found that an improvement made to the abstract idea is not patent eligible. SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
Applicant argues that Jain does not teach certain elements of the claim language and cites portions of the specification to support this. However, unclaimed elements from the specification do not need to be met with prior art. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With regard to the claimed limitations, Examiner has amended the rejections above to address the new amended claim language that is present. The Jain reference does indeed teach the claimed invention for the reasons set forth above.
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 MICHAEL BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, F.
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, WASEEM ASHRAF can be reached at (571) 270-3948. 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.
/MICHAEL BEKERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621