DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-23 are pending. Claims 1-23 are considered in this Office action.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-23 of the current application, hereby known as ‘591, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21(1) of U.S. Patent No. 11,625,388, hereby known as ‘388. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claims 1, 12, and 21, Claims 1, 12, and 21 of ‘591 recite substantially similar steps of '388 Claims 1, 12, and 21.
Claims 1, 12, and 21 of ‘591 recite the limitations of:
(a) a task analysis data store containing electronic records that represent a plurality of task analysis items for the enterprise and, for each planned task analysis item, an electronic record identifier and a set of task analysis item attribute values including a task identifier;
(b) the back-end application computer server, coupled to the task analysis data store, including: a computer processor, and a computer memory, coupled to the computer processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the back-end application computer server to:
(i) receive, from a remote user device associated with a user, first step data about task objectives associated with the task identifier,
(ii) update the task analysis data store based on the received first step data,
(iii) automatically evaluate the first step data in accordance with at least one first step data evaluation rule,
(iv) automatically generate an alert signal when the first step data diverges from the at least one first step data evaluation rule by more than a threshold amount,
(v) when the first step data complies with the at least one first step data evaluation rule, permit receipt of second step data about a task analysis associated with the task identifier, and
(vi) prevent, via an access control tollbooth, receipt of second step data when the first step data is not in compliance with the at least one first step data evaluation rule thereby reducing a number of messages that need to be transmitted;
(c) a communication port coupled to the back-end application computer server to facilitate a transmission of data with multiple remote user devices to support interactive user interface displays via a distributed communication network; and
(d) an email server receiving information from the back-end application computer server which automatically establishes a channel of communication, via exchanged records, with an employee through the alert signal and a reminder that the employee has not completed entering at least one of the first step data and the second step data.
Whereas Claims 1, 12, and 21 of ‘388 states:
(a) a task analysis data store, accessible via an encrypted database management system, the task analysis data store containing electronic records that represent a plurality of task analysis items for the enterprise and, for each planned task analysis item, an electronic record identifier and a set of task analysis item attribute values including a task identifier;
(b) the back-end application computer server, coupled to the task analysis data store, including: a computer processor, and a computer memory, coupled to the computer processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the back-end application computer server to:
(i) receive, from a remote user device associated with a user via at least one security feature component, first step data about task objectives associated with the task identifier,
(ii) update the task analysis data store based on the received first step data,
(iii) automatically evaluate the first step data in accordance with at least one first step data evaluation rule,
(iv) automatically generate an alert signal when the first step data diverges from the at least one first step data evaluation rule by more than a threshold amount,
(v) when the first step data complies with the at least one first step data evaluation rule, permit receipt of second step data about a task analysis associated with the task identifier, wherein the second step data includes an audience analysis for an assigned decision maker, and
(vi) prevent, via an access control toll booth, receipt of second step data when the first step data is not in compliance with the at least one first step data evaluation rule thereby reducing the number of messages that need to be transmitted,
(vii) update the task analysis data store based on the received second step data,
(viii) automatically evaluate the second step data in accordance with at least one second step data evaluation rule,
(vix) when the second step data complies with the at least one second step data evaluation rule, permit receipt of third step data about analysis presentation associated with the task identifier, and
(x) prevent, via an access control toll booth, receipt of third step data when the second step data is not in compliance with the at least one second step data evaluation rule thereby reducing the number of messages that need to be transmitted and
(xi) update the task analysis data store based on the received third step data;
(xii) automatically generate physical presentation materials based on information in the task analysis data store;
(c) a communication port coupled to the back-end application computer server to facilitate a transmission of data with multiple remote user devices to support interactive user interface displays via a distributed communication network; and
(d) an email server receiving information from the back-end application computer server which automatically establishes a channel of communication, via exchanged records, with an employee through the alert signal and a reminder that the employee has not completed entering at least one of the first step data and the second step data.
These are obvious variants of each other as elimination of an element (in this case elements) or its functions is deemed to be obvious in light of prior art teachings of at least the recited element or its functions (see In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184, 186; 311 F2d 581 (CCPA 1963)), thereby rendering the elimination of any elements recited in the claims of the related patent (that are not recited in the instant claims) obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Examiner notes there is no rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
The claims are patent eligible as they meet the Alice test for eligibility under 35 USC §101 and the MPEP as the claims recite limitations which are not abstract under Prong 2 of step 2A of the Alice analysis, as any abstraction recited in the Claim limitations which may be construed as “A Mental Process” or “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” such as utilizing observations, evaluations, and judgements in the form of collecting, analyzing, and transmitting information for the purposes of generating physical presentation materials based on information in the task analysis data store, are integrated into a practical application, as the additional elements applies the judicial exception in a meaningful way by utilizing an email server which automatically establishes a channel of communication, via exchanged records, with an employee through an alert and reminder, along with the other limitations, thus controlling flow of information through the established channel of communication. Therefore, independent Claims 1, 12, and 21 are not directed at an abstract idea under 2A Prong 2 of the MPEP, as they are integrated into a practical application and thus eligible under 35 USC §101 Alice.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-8, 11-19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Publication No. 2019/038,5240) in view of Cordray (U.S. Publication No. 2016/013,4491).
Regarding Claims 1, 12, and 21, Lee teaches a system to access and update electronic record information via a back-end application computer server of an enterprise, comprising:
(a) a task analysis data store containing electronic records that represent a plurality of task analysis items for the enterprise ([0046] a data store which contains data entries for records in [0047] a task managements system) and, for each planned task analysis item, an electronic record identifier and a set of task analysis item attribute values including a task identifier (Table 1 shows a task with a name (identifier) with different attributes and types of fields for each as shown in Table 2 as in [0083]);
(b) the back-end application computer server, coupled to the task analysis data store, including: a computer processor, and a computer memory, coupled to the computer processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor ([0073] server with data sources/stores and Claim 13 and processor [0003]), cause the back-end application computer server to:
(i) receive, from a remote user device associated with a user, first step data about task objectives associated with the task identifier ([0057] data is received and updated by the system, the data is first data where there is also [0058] additional data which is received (second and third) which contain the task information as in the Tables above which have identifiers such as the name as in Table 1),
(ii) update the task analysis data store based on the received first step data ([0046] the information is updated in the data store from the user information),
(iii) automatically evaluate the first step data in accordance with at least one first step data evaluation rule ([0047] validation/evaluation is performed on the received data of [0046]),
(v) when the first step data complies with the at least one first step data evaluation rule, permit receipt of second step data about a task analysis associated with the task identifier ([0047-48] the system mapping of rules allows for new data to be updated into the system based on [0050] rules pertaining to [0051] risk which are evaluated/compiled) and
(c) a communication port coupled to the back-end application computer server to facilitate a transmission of data with multiple remote user devices to support interactive user interface displays via a distributed communication network ([0073] communication port which uses interfaces on multiple devices to receive and transmit information between stakeholders over a network as in Fig. 2);
Although Lee teaches an automatically generated alert which is used when information diverges from compliance as in [0061], a table which is used to enter data from an employee or user which has been sent an alert to complete the detail required as in [0079-82] and Table 1, use of servers which are enabled as in [0057] based on rules and validation, and preventing/enabling/restricting access to data and information on the system based on compliance and alerts as in [0058], it does not explicitly state use of a threshold, an evaluation rule, or that there is an established connection with an email server.
Cordray, a self configuring network management system and method, teaches automatically generate an alert signal when the first step data diverges from the at least one first step data evaluation rule by more than a threshold amount ([0400] where alerts are sent based on threshold which are configurable, such as being used based on certain data).
Cordray also teaches rules which prevent access to drives or allow connections as in [0205], [0252], and [0261], and
an email server which establishes a connection based on rules as in [0252], which is based on thresholds and alerts when rules and compliance are met as in [0400].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the servers with access of Lee with the thresholds being used for an email server and establishing connection of Cordray as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to problems in task management, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would allow for less agents needing to be needed and thus reduce ongoing management and IT costs as taught in [0489] of Cordray.
Examiner notes Lee teaches a computer-readable medium (Claim 13 and processor [0003]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 13, Lee teaches wherein the task analysis item attribute values include at least one of: (i) a desired future state, (ii) a task driver, (iii) a checklist ([0053] list of information/checklist), (iv) a performance metric ([0032] calculated performance metric), (v) criteria of success, (vi) self-rating data, (vii) risk information ([0041] risk analysis of information), (viii) a mitigation plan, (ix) an audience analysis, and (x) potential questions and responses.
Regarding Claims 3 and 14, Lee teaches wherein at least one evaluation rule is associated with: (i) a checklist completion, (ii) a self-rating, (iii) supporting documentation, (iv) a minimum amount of time, (v) a percentage of completion, (vi) an artificial intelligence review, and (vii) manual review by at least one other user ([0034] manual review by stakeholder).
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, Lee teaches wherein the first step data is associated with at least one of: (i) benefit details for the enterprise, (ii) risk details for the enterprise ([0032] risk associated with company/enterprise), (iii) a subject matter expert identifier ([0031] due diligence experts is a subject matter expert).
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Lee teaches wherein the second step data is associated with at least one of: (i) research and data collection, (ii) stakeholder consultation ([0032] stakeholder consultation), and (iii) critical analysis.
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Lee teaches wherein the second step is associated with a repeated process, until a recommendation is selected, including all the following: (i) research and data collection, (ii) stakeholder consultation (Lee teaches a repeated process and using stakeholder interaction as in [0031-32]), and (iii) critical analysis.
Regarding Claims 7 and 18, Lee teaches The system of claim 5, wherein the second step data includes a stakeholder analysis containing at least one of: (i) a stakeholder identifier, (ii) a stakeholder role, (Table 3 Role of the person and on Table 8 as in [0084] who are authenticated through use of unique identifiers as in [0066]), (iii) an anticipated reaction, (iv) stakeholder needs and concerns, (v) enterprise needs, and (vi) plan data.
Regarding Claims 8 and 19, Lee teaches wherein the second step data further includes decision making model information ([0053] data models are used for decision making from the received information).
Regarding Claims 11 and 23, Lee teaches wherein the back-end application computer server is further programmed to transmit information from the task analysis data store to another remote device associated with another user ([0066] system is a backend computer server which transmits information to user via interfaces on their devices).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Publication No. 2019/038,5240) in view of Cordray (U.S. Publication No. 2016/013,4491) in further view of Asaf (U.S. Publication No. 2017/029,3874).
Regarding Claims 9 and 20, Although the combination of Lee and Cordray teaches analysis by stakeholders as in Claims 1 and 5 above, they do not explicitly state an audience analysis for a particular decision maker.
Asaf teaches further includes an audience analysis and sentiment analysis for an assigned decision maker as in [0058] with NLP and in [0070].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine analyzation of information by computer of the stakeholders of the combination of Lee and Cordray with the stakeholder and sentiment analysis of Asaf as they are all analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions for analyzation of risk, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase productivity and retention and decrease grievances of stakeholders as taught in [0021] of Asaf.
Claims 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Publication No. 2019/038,5240) in view of Cordray (U.S. Publication No. 2016/013,4491) in further view of Murphy (U.S. Publication No. 2008/010,3957).
Regarding Claims 10 and 22, Although the combination of Lee and Cordray teaches a back-end application computer server which is analyzed by computer automatically by stakeholders as in Claims 1 and 5 above, they do not teach a physical presentation.
Murphy teaches to generate physical presentation materials based on information in the task analysis data store as in [0062] where the audience and stakeholders receive paper reports for analysis.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine analyzation of information by computer of the stakeholders of the combination of Lee and Cordray with the physical reports of Murphy as they are all analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions for analyzation of risk, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase transparency and improve decisions as taught in [0034] of Murphy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190385240 A1
LEE; Duane Elliott et al.
NEW ISSUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
US 20170293874 A1
Asaf; Samir
INTELLIGENT REAL-TIME 360° ENTERPRISE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT METHOD AND SYSTEM
US 20160134491 A1
CORDRAY; Christopher G. et al.
SELF CONFIGURING NETWORK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
US 20130144605 A1
Brager; Barry A. et al.
Text Mining Analysis and Output System
US 20080103957 A1
Murphy; Jeremy
User interfaces for F.A.I.R. systems
US 20200372533 A1
Rammal; Karim Anwar
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR VALIDATING A TRANSACTION
US 20200296138 A1
Crabtree; Jason et al.
PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS OF INTEGRATED OPERATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS
US 20190332807 A1
LaFever; Malcolm Gary et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENFORCING PRIVACY-RESPECTFUL, TRUSTED COMMUNICATIONS
US 20180330290 A1
Mack; Gerhard Friedrich et al.
QUANTITATIVE METRICS FOR ASSESSING STATUS OF A PLATFORM ARCHITECTURE FOR CLOUD COMPUTING
US 20170236060 A1
IGNATYEV; OLEKSIY
System and Method for Automated Detection of Incorrect Data
US 20170103231 A1
Lipman; Keith
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTED, POLICY-BASED CONFIDENTIALITY MANAGEMENT
US 20170059492 A1
Karimi; Muhammad Akram et al.
Systems and Methods for Determining Water-Cut of a Fluid Mixture
US 20150379416 A1
HOLTZMAN; Samuel
DECISION ASSISTANCE SYSTEM
US 20150170072 A1
Grant; David S. et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING NETWORK RESOURCE REQUESTS
US 20150026760 A1
Lipman; Keith
System and Method for Policy-Based Confidentiality Management
US 20140279588 A1
FitzGerald; James et al.
LEGAL MANDATE SYSTEM AND METHOD
US 20140207694 A1
VICKERY; Chad et al.
ELECTORAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT METHOD, AND SYSTEM
US 20130290200 A1
Singhal; Anupam et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF COMPLIANCE TRACKING
US 20120239822 A1
Poulson; Chris Stewart et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SEAMLESS COMMUNICATIONS RECOVERY AND BACKUP USING NETWORKED COMMUNICATION DEVICES
US 20080092108 A1
Corral; David Perez
Method and System for a Quality Software Management Process
US 20070208653 A1
Murphy; Jeremy
FACILITATED ACCELERATION OF INFORMATION REVELATION
US 20060161444 A1
Lubrecht; Michael D. et al.
Methods for standards management
US 20050114829 A1
Robin, Allison et al.
Facilitating the process of designing and developing a project
US 20220060511 A1
Crabtree; Jason et al.
AI-DRIVEN DEFENSIVE CYBERSECURITY STRATEGY ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683 9/11/2025