NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 14, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0157528 to Gigante et al. (hereinafter Gigante) in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0114120 to Bostick et al. (hereinafter Bostick) and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0334190 to Zhao.
Gigante discloses:
1. A computer-implemented method of handling events for digitalised processes, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a processor of a computing device, a first event record from a memory of the computing device, the first event record being linked to a first digitalised process (para. [0020] – storage of running times for processes) and comprising:
a first expected time of a first event occurring (para. [0020] – running time for process), and
a first status indicator indicative of the likelihood of the first event occurring at the first expected time (para. [0032] – likelihood that the process will execute for a duration);
inputting, by the processor, the first event record into a status indicator confidence model (paras. [0041]-[0042]).
Gigante does not disclose expressly:
outputting, by the processor to a display, a first confidence score from the status indicator confidence model for the first status indicator that represents a level of confidence that the first status indicator is accurate; and
outputting, by the processor to the display, a justification of the first confidence score from the status indicator confidence model, the justification being a text-based comment.
Bostick teaches:
outputting, by the processor to a display, a first confidence score from the status indicator confidence model for the first status indicator that represents a level of confidence that the first status indicator is accurate (paras. [0037], [0087]); and
outputting, by the processor to the display, a justification of the first confidence score from the status indicator confidence model, the justification being a text-based comment (paras. [0035]-[0036], [0077], [0085]-[0087]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gigante by outputting and displaying a confidence and a justification, as taught by Bostick. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent incidents from occurring, by predicting when they will occur and notifying the user, as described by Bostick (para. [0015]).
Gigante further does not disclose expressly the justification being a text-based comment that outlines why the status indicator confidence model provided the first confidence score it did, including one or more features that were important for determining the first confidence score.
Zhao teaches the justification being a text-based comment that outlines why the status indicator confidence model provided the first confidence score it did, including one or more features that were important for determining the first confidence score (paras. [0035], [0056], [0057]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gigante by using a justification that outlines the determination of the confidence score, as taught by Zhao. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide transparency for planning and analysis, as described by Zhao (para. [0065]).
Claim 14 is a computer for performing the identical steps as performed by the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for performing the identical steps as performed by the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale.
21. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
If the first confidence score is below a predetermined threshold, setting, by the processor, a flag for the first event record (Bostick – paras. [0033], [0037]).
Claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gigante in view of Bostick and Zhao, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0153191 to Gennetten et al. (hereinafter Gennetten).
Gigante does not disclose expressly:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the status indicator confidence model is trained using a machine learning algorithm and a plurality of past event records, the plurality of past event records being linked to a plurality of past digitalised processes, and each of the past event records comprising at least one of:
a past expected time of an event;
an indicator as to whether the event occurred at the past expected time; and
a past status indicator that indicated the likelihood of the event occurring at the expected time.
Gennetten teaches:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the status indicator confidence model is trained using a machine learning algorithm and a plurality of past event records, the plurality of past event records being linked to a plurality of past digitalised processes, and each of the past event records comprising at least one of:
a past expected time of an event;
an indicator as to whether the event occurred at the past expected time; and
a past status indicator that indicated the likelihood of the event occurring at the expected time (paras. [0004]-[0009]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gigante by training a model using a machine learning algorithm and a plurality of past event records, as taught by Gennetten. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for automated prediction of future outcomes, as discussed by Gennetten (paras. [0002], [0026]).
Modified Gigante discloses:
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the first event record further comprises a first event identifier of the first event, wherein each of the past event records further comprises a past event identifier and a version indicator, wherein a portion of the plurality of past event records has the same past event identifier and different version indicators (Gennetten – paras. [0031], [0034]).
6. The method of claim 2, wherein at least one of the plurality of past event records and/or the first event record further comprises a plurality of distinct indicators (Gigante – para. [0020] and Gennetten – paras. [0031], [0034]).
8. The method of claim 2, wherein at least one of the plurality of past event records and/or the first event record further comprises a free-text comment (Bostick – paras. [0019], [0069]).
10. The method of claim 2, further comprising, if the flag for the first event record has been set, receiving either a revised expected time of the first event or a revised first status indicator from the status indicator confidence model (Gigante - para. [0043]).
11. The method of claim 2, wherein the first event record is obtained from a user, further comprising notifying the user if the flag for the first event record has been set (Gigante - paras. [0074], [0076]).
12. The method of claim 2, further comprising allocating, by the processor, further resources to the digitalised process in response to either:
the first status indicator indicating a low likelihood of the first event occurring at the first expected time and the flag for the first event record not being set; or
the first status indicator indicating a high likelihood of the first event occurring at the first expected time and the flag for the first event record being set (Gigante - para. [0051]).
17. The method of claim 3, wherein the version indicator is a time (Gigante – para. [0020] and Gennetten – paras. [0031], [0034]).
18. The method of claim 6, wherein the plurality of distinct indicators quantify the digitalised process (Gigante – para. [0020] and Gennetten – paras. [0031], [0034]).
19. The method of claim 8, wherein the free-text comment is generated during the digitalised process for a user to review (Bostick - paras. [0019], [0069], [0087]).
20. The method of claim 12, wherein the further resources are any of:
computer memory;
processor cores;
higher clock cycles; or
un-allocating resources from other digitalised processes that may be running on a computer hardware for the digitalised process to use (Gigante -para. [0051]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip Guyton whose telephone number is (571)272-3807. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571)272-3655. 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.
/PHILIP GUYTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights