DETAILED 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 7, 8 & 15 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Khan fails to teach the claims as amended. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Khan teaches doctors notes or annotations may include reasons for certain procedures and operations, which are equivalent to the amended recitation of root cause condition for an actual or expected event . . . based on past actions performed on each record, at paragraphs [0121] – [0124].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “determining resource overhead”. It appears this should be amended, based on the previous amendments to claim 1, to recite “determining the resource overhead”. This would also be consistent with previous amendments to corresponding claims 14 & 20.
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)(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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khan et al. (US 2023/0316408 A1, hereinafter “Khan”).
Khan teaches:
1. A method for managing and processing database records, the method comprising:
maintaining, by a records management and processing system, a plurality of records in a database, each record of the plurality of records comprising a record of a service provided to a consumer by a service provider of a plurality of service providers and identifying at least one required action by at least one responsible entity of a plurality of responsible entities [Khan, ¶ 0002] and
wherein the records management and processing system comprises an intermediary between systems of the plurality of service providers and systems of the plurality of responsible entities [Khan, Fig. 1B and ¶ 0009];
training, by the records management and processing system, one or more models for processing of the plurality of records using machine learning and based on past routing of and actions performed on one or more records of the plurality of records [Khan, ¶ 0059];
selecting, by the records management and processing system, a subset of records of the plurality of records based on an event associated with each record of the subset of records [Khan, ¶ 0060];
applying, by the records management and processing system, a model of the one or more models to the selected subset of records [Khan, ¶ 0061],
wherein the applied model determines a root cause condition for an actual or expected event for each record of the selected subset of records based on past actions performed on each record [Khan, ¶¶ 0121-0124]; and
processing, by the records management and processing system, the selected subset of records based on the applied model [Khan, ¶ 0061], the root cause condition for the actual or expected event for each record of the selected subset of records [Khan, ¶¶ 0121-0124], and a resource overhead in the records management and processing system for processing records within the selected subset of records [Khan, ¶¶ 0103-0105].
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the machine learning comprises supervised learning [Khan, ¶ 0057].
3. The method of claim 1, wherein processing the selected subset of records based on the applied model comprises:
finding previous routing in the records management and processing system for each record of the selected subset of records [Khan, ¶ 0089];
finding previous actions performed in the records management and processing system for each record of the selected subset of records [Khan, ¶ 0089];
determining the root cause condition for the actual or expected event for each record of the selected subset of records based on the applied model, the previous routing in the records management and processing system for each record, and the previous actions performed in the records management and processing system for each record [Khan, ¶¶ 0121-0124]; and
initiating further routing and actions in the records management and processing system based on the determined root cause condition for the actual or expected event for each record of the selected subset of records and the applied model [Khan, ¶ 0125].
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the actual or expected event for at least one record of the selected subset of records comprises an actual event that has occurred and wherein the further routing and actions in the records management and processing system are directed to corrective action for the actual event [Khan, ¶ 0122].
5. The method of claim 3, wherein the actual or expected event for at least one record of the selected subset of records comprises an expected event that can occur and wherein the further routing and actions in the records management and processing system are directed to preventative action for the expected event [Khan, ¶ 0122].
6. The method of claim 3, further comprising updating the applied model based on a result of the further routing and actions in the records management and processing system [Khan, ¶ 0104].
7. The method of claim 1, wherein processing the selected subset of records based on the applied model comprises:
identifying one or more activities performed on each record of the selected subset of records in the records management and processing system [Khan, ¶¶ 0096-0098];
grouping the records of the selected subset of records into a plurality of groups based on the identified activities performed on each record [Khan, ¶¶ 0096-0098];
determining one or more next actions for each group of the plurality of groups based on the applied model [Khan, ¶¶ 0096-0098];
determining resource overhead in the records management and processing system for each group of the plurality of groups based on the determined one or more next actions for each group [Khan, ¶¶ 0103-0105];
prioritizing the plurality of groups based on the determined resource overhead for each group [Khan, ¶¶ 0103-0105]; and
performing the determined one or more next actions on one or more groups of the plurality of groups based on the prioritization of the plurality of groups [Khan, ¶¶ 0103-0105].
Claims 8-14 recite limitations which are similar to those recited in claims 1-7, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 15-20 recite limitations which are similar to those recited in claims 1-5 & 7, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott A. Waldron whose telephone number is (571)272-5898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/Scott A. Waldron/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
Prosecution Insights