DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is responsive to the application filed July 12th, 2024. Claims 1-16 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/30/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation beginning “schedule” recites “the respective plurality of data process segments” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a respective plurality of data process segments”;
The limitation beginning “detect that one” recites “the first time period” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a first time period”;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the final line recites “the respective branches” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “the one or more branches”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites “the corresponding branch” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a corresponding branch”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation beginning “receiving” recites “a communication circuit of said system” and “storing, in said memory” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “receiving, by a communication circuit, and storing, in a memory”;
the limitation beginning “performing” recites “a processor” which is a typographical error that should recite “the processor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a data process recommender in claims 1, 9, and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
When looking to the specification, the hardware structure associated with the “data process recommender” is being interpreted as “the memory,” please see at least Fig. 1 and [0052] of the instant specification. The corresponding algorithm of the “data process recommender” can be found in at least Fig. 1 and corresponding paragraphs [052]. This is to be the structure and algorithm required for the claim, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (system), 9 (method), and 16 (non-transitory computer-readable medium) and dependent claims 2-8 and 10-15, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e. machine), claim 9 is directed to a method (i.e. process), and claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite dynamically updating a priority queue for scheduling data operations associated with data records comprising: scheduling, by a data process recommender, data operations for data records associated with a plurality of auditable entities, wherein said scheduling comprises generating a series or sequence of data process segments associated with an audit process for said plurality of auditable entities, and determining priority weights for the respective plurality of data process segments; receiving, by a communication circuit, and storing, in a memory, event data from one or more data source devices; detecting that one or more event data objects meet a threshold value for identifying a shift in data operations relevance indicating emergence of a time-varying event associated with the plurality of auditable entities during the first time period, wherein the event data objects include external news data associated with advanced indication of changes to event data associated with one or more data records corresponding to one or more auditable entities, wherein detecting event data meeting the threshold value includes: obtaining the external news data including external text-based data; parsing the external text-based data using natural-language processing to determine frequency indices associated with n-grams of the external text-based data; and determining that one or more of the determined frequency indices associated with the n-grams of the external text-based data deviates from frequency indices of n-grams of data records corresponding to one or more auditable entities; based on the event data, identifying the plurality of auditable entities corresponding to one or more data records; generating an updated priority queue for re-allocating data operations, wherein re-allocating data operations includes updating priority weights, and wherein said updated priority queue includes updated weights and orders for said series or sequence of data process segments associated with the updated audit process; transmitting the updated priority queue for scheduling data operations associated with data records of respective auditable entities; and performing, by a processor, the scheduled data operations in accordance with the updated priority queue and said updated series or sequence of data process segments associated with said updated audit process (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are dynamically updating a priority queue for scheduling data operations associated with data records comprising: schedule, data operations for data records associated with a plurality of auditable entities, wherein said scheduling comprises generating a series or sequence of data process segments associated with an audit process for said plurality of auditable entities, and determining priority weights for the respective plurality of data process segments; generate an updated priority queue for re-allocating data operations, wherein re-allocating data operations includes updating priority weights, and wherein said updated priority queue includes updated weights and orders for said series or sequence of data process segments associated with said updated audit process; and performing, the scheduled data operations in accordance with the updated priority queue and updated series or sequence of data process segments associated with said updated audit process, which is managing personal behavior and interactions. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are dynamically updating a priority queue for scheduling data operations associated with data records specifically auditing processes, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed dynamically updating a priority queue for scheduling data operations associated with data records comprising: schedule, by a data process recommender, data operations for data records associated with a plurality of auditable entities, wherein said scheduling comprises generating a series or sequence of data process segments associated with an audit process for said plurality of auditable entities, and determining priority weights for the respective plurality of data process segments; detect that one or more event data objects meet a threshold value for identifying a shift in data operations relevance indicating emergence of a time-varying event associated with the plurality of auditable entities during the first time period, wherein the event data objects include external news data associated with advanced indication of changes to event data associated with one or more data records corresponding to one or more auditable entities, wherein detecting event data meeting the threshold value includes: parsing the external text-based data to determine frequency indices associated with n-grams of the external text-based data; determining that one or more of the determined frequency indices associated with the n-grams of the external text-based data deviates from frequency indices of n-grams of data records corresponding to one or more auditable entities; based on the event data, identify the plurality of auditable entities corresponding to one or more data records; and generate an updated priority queue for re-allocating data operations, wherein re-allocating data operations includes updating priority weights, and wherein said updated priority queue includes updated weights and orders for said series or sequence of data process segments associated with said updated audit process, which are observations, judgments, and evaluations of the human mind. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are dynamically updating a priority queue for scheduling data operations associated with data records specifically auditing processes, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
Dependent claims 6 and 14 recite “generating moving average index values for respective event data for the respective data records for two or more of the plurality of discrete time intervals”. This steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mathematical Concepts because the claims recite the generation of moving average index values which is a mathematical calculation. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are generating moving average index values, which recite the abstract idea of Mathematical Concepts.
In addition, dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-15 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the priority weights; parsing event data from the one or more data records to be associated with entities of respective branches of a cascading tree structure; detecting the event data meets a threshold value; and in response to detecting the event data meeting the second sub-threshold value, generate the updated priority queue for scheduling the data operations. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior as well as mental process. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas. Dependent claims 5 and 13 will be discussed in Prong 2 analysis below.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “receiving, by a communication circuit, and storing, in a memory, event data from one or more data source devices; obtaining the external news data including external text-based data; transmitting the updated priority queue for scheduling data operations associated with data records of respective auditable entities” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “A system for dynamically updating a priority queue for scheduling data operations associated with data records, the system comprising: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed; a data process recommender; a communication circuit of said system; a dynamic user interface; A non-transitory computer-readable medium or media having stored thereon machine interpretable instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a computer-implemented method” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
Independent claims 1, 9, and 16 recite “parsing the external text-based data using natural-language processing to determine frequency indices associated with n-grams of the external text-based data”. The “using natural-language processing” is recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
In addition, dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-15 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 5, 6, 8, and 13-15 additionally recite “transmitting the updated priority queue includes displaying a dynamic user interface illustrating emerging event data corresponding to shifts in data operation relevance”, “obtain one or more data records associated with entities of respective branches of a cascading tree structure”, “generate a signal for transmitting to a client device a notification message, in substantially real-time, an unplanned increase or a decrease in event data metrics” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “dynamic user interface” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “A system for dynamically updating a priority queue for scheduling data operations associated with data records, the system comprising: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed; a data process recommender; a communication circuit of said system; a dynamic user interface; A non-transitory computer-readable medium or media having stored thereon machine interpretable instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a computer-implemented method” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 9-15; system claims 1-8; and non-transitory computer-readable medium claim 16 recite “A system for dynamically updating a priority queue for scheduling data operations associated with data records, the system comprising: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed; a data process recommender; a communication circuit of said system; a dynamic user interface; A non-transitory computer-readable medium or media having stored thereon machine interpretable instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a computer-implemented method”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0047-51 and Figure 1. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “receiving, by a communication circuit, and storing, in a memory, event data from one or more data source devices; obtaining the external news data including external text-based data; transmitting the updated priority queue for scheduling data operations associated with data records of respective auditable entities” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to reliance on “natural language processing (NLP)” to evaluate the received data, this activity is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Morsa, US 2006/0085408 (paragraph 0144: well-known-to-the-arts natural language processing (NLP) (computational linguistics) or some other method as is well known to the arts may be used). See also, Szabo, US Pat. No. 5,966,126 (col. 6, lines 57-62 and col. 28, lines 16-19: e.g., definitions may be produced in known manner, such as by explicit definition, or through use of assistive technologies, such as natural language translators; user defines a search using prior known techniques, such as natural language searching).
In addition, claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-15 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 5, 6, 8, and 13-15 additionally recite “transmitting the updated priority queue includes displaying a dynamic user interface illustrating emerging event data corresponding to shifts in data operation relevance”, “obtain one or more data records associated with entities of respective branches of a cascading tree structure”, “generate a signal for transmitting to a client device a notification message, in substantially real-time, an unplanned increase or a decrease in event data metrics” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “dynamic user interface” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-9, 13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerashchenko (U.S 2018/0121484 A1) in view of Adar (U.S 2006/0089837 A1) in view of Johnson (U.S 2021/0272040 A1).
Claims 1, 9, and 16
Regarding Claim 1, Gerashchenko discloses the following:
A system for dynamically updating a priority queue for scheduling data operations associated with data records, the system comprising [see at least Paragraph 0032 for reference to a system configured to implement audit scheduling; Figure 1 and related text regarding the system comprising a database storing a master data set comprising audit events; Figure 11 and related text regarding the hardware of a special purpose computing machine configured to implement audit scheduling determination in a data layer; Figure 12 and related text regarding the example computer system]
a processor [see at least Paragraph 0117 for reference to the computer system comprising a processor that is in electronic communication with a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising a database; Paragraph 0118 for reference to the computer system including a processor coupled with the bus for processing information; Figure 11 and related text regarding item 1102 ‘processor’; Figure 12 and related text regarding item 1201 ‘processor’]
a memory coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed, configure the processor to [see at least Paragraph 118 for reference to the computer system including a memory coupled to a bus for storing information and instructions to be executed by a processor; Figure 12 and related text regarding item 1202 ‘memory’]
schedule, by a data process recommender, data operations for data records associated with a plurality of auditable entities, wherein said scheduling comprises generating a series or sequence of data process segments associated with an audit process for said plurality of auditable entities, and determining priority weights for the respective plurality of data process segments [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to the scheduling engine executing an event scheduling procedure; Paragraph 0035 for reference to in response to input, the scheduling engine creates audit events as data objects and then groups these events according to information; Paragraph 0036 for reference to the engine chooses a random event within the group and then selects a time slot according to a desired distribution (e. g., left - to - right or evenly distributed), determining resource availability for that time slot; Paragraph 0037 for reference to the engine proceeds to shuffle through events of the group with the highest priority and duration, and then through audit events of corresponding lower priority groups, in order to fill out the audit schedule according to resource availability and constraints; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 212 ‘Create Schedule’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 306 ‘Create Schedule’; Figures 8-8D and related text regarding an audit schedule]
receive, by a communication circuit of said system, and store, in said memory, event data from one or more data source devices [see at least Paragraph 0032 for reference to the system comprises a database storing a master data set comprising audit events; Paragraph 0039 for reference to information about the units, priorities, and audit types present within the master data set is merged in order to create audit events; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 202 ‘Create Events’]
based on the event data, identify the plurality of auditable entities corresponding to one or more data records [see at least Paragraph 0040 for reference to audit events being grouped by priority ad duration and build units similar to sorted card decks; Paragraph 0041 for reference to the audit group with the audit group with the highest priority and longest duration of the audit events is selected; Figure 2 and related text regarding item 204 ‘Select Group’ and item 206 ‘Select Event’]
generate an updated priority queue for re-allocating data operations, wherein re-allocating data operations includes updating priority weights, and wherein said updated priority queue includes updated weights and orders for said series or sequence of data process segments associated with said updated audit process [see at least Paragraph 0037 for reference to the engine proceeds to shuffle through events of the group with the highest priority and duration , and then through audit events of corresponding lower priority groups, in order to fill out the audit schedule according to resource availability and constraints; Paragraph 0042 for reference to the process being repeated as long as there is no complete match of criteria found or the end of the considered calendar is reached; Paragraph 0057 for reference to the individual audit plan for each resource being updated automatically; Paragraph 0110 for reference to based upon displayed results (e.g., either the schedule or assignment plan), the user can change some parameters or constraints and start recalculation in order to find a more suitable audit schedule]
transmitting the updated priority queue for scheduling data operations associated with data records of respective auditable entities [see at least Paragraph 0046 for reference to when no more audit groups are available, the audit schedule is created and displayed; Paragraph 0104 for reference to when no more audit groups are available the audit schedule will be additionally transformed to the per sonal audit schedule for each auditor]
performing, by said processor of said system, the scheduled data operations in accordance with the updated priority queue and updated series or sequence of data process segments associated with said updated audit process [see at least Paragraph 0039 for reference to the audit event scheduling procedure being executed by the scheduling engine; Paragraph 0043 for reference to resources being assigned to the scheduled audit event; Paragraph 0109 for reference to an individual assignment plan of audit tasks for different auditing resources; Paragraph 0110 for reference to the user deciding to keep the particular audit schedule and initiating an approval process with management]
While Gerashchenko discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose detect that one or more event data objects meet a threshold value for identifying a shift in data operations relevance indicating emergence of a time-varying event associated with the plurality of auditable entities during the first time period, wherein the event data objects include external news data associated with advanced indication of changes to event data associated with one or more data records corresponding to one or more auditable entities; wherein detecting event data meeting the threshold value includes: obtaining the external news data including external text-based data; parsing the external text-based data using natural-language processing to determine frequency indices associated with n-grams of the external text-based data; and determining that one or more of the determined frequency indices associated with the n-grams of the external text-based data deviates from frequency indices of n-grams of data records corresponding to one or more auditable entities.
However, Adar discloses the following:
detect that one or more event data objects meet a threshold value for identifying a shift in data operations relevance indicating emergence of a time-varying event associated with the plurality of auditable entities during the first time period, wherein the event data objects include external news data associated with advanced indication of changes to event data associated with one or more data records corresponding to one or more auditable entities [see at least Paragraph 0054 for reference to applications 176, 178, 180, 182, 184, 186 are designed to monitor conduct, to provide business performance information and to improve the performance quality of the financial institute's representatives. Monitoring application 176 allows key personnel of the financial institution, such as compliance officers, management, auditors, and Supervisors to monitor selectively one or more interactions in real time; Paragraph 0057 for reference to time synchronization of the timing devices of the interaction archives guarantees that the correct sequence of events is maintained, so the integrated retrieval/playback module 208 associates the transaction specific set of interactions in accordance with to the times tamp generated at that point in time in which the interactions were captured; Paragraph 0067 for reference to a threshold value being set to indicate the amount above to which an alarm is triggered; Figure 8B and related text regarding item 190 ‘business analysis module’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the audit scheduling system of Gerashchenko to include the detection of a shift of Adar. Doing so would efficiently detect cases where the rules of conduct are not followed without using manual handling of a vase amount of phone calls or recordings, as stated by Adar (Paragraph 0013).
While the combination of Gerashchenko and Adar disclose the limitations above, they do not disclose wherein detecting event data meeting the threshold value includes: obtaining the external news data including external text-based data; parsing the external text-based data using natural-language processing to determine frequency indices associated with n-grams of the external text-based data; and determining that one or more of the determined frequency indices associated with the n-grams of the external text-based data deviates from frequency indices of n-grams of data records corresponding to one or more auditable entities.
However, Johnson discloses the following:
wherein detecting event data meeting the threshold value includes: obtaining the external news data including external text-based data [see at least Paragraph 0052 for reference to utilizing artificial intelligence in language processing can allow systems to extract various information from articles (e.g., interview, television broadcasts, speeches, phone conversations, news articles, social media posts, etc.); Paragraph 0062 for reference to articles may include news articles, analyst notes, journals, books, social media posts (e.g., Twitter posts, Facebook posts, etc.), transcribed speeches, emails, etc.; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 110 ‘article sources’]
parsing the external text-based data using natural-language processing to determine frequency indices associated with n-grams of the external text-based data [see at least Paragraph 0138 for reference to domain graph generator 402 can parse through textual data provided by article collector 114 to determine certain relationships between information for a particular company including parsing each article of text and extracting entities from the articles; Paragraph 0222 for reference to extracted information can be used by an intent and entity recognition system to identify specific intents and entities. The intents can be separated as factors and entities can be provided for extraction of natural language processing (NLP) features; Paragraph 0324 for reference to each paragraph (or other length of text such as a page) can be isolated and deconstructed into sentences, phrases, and N eventually n - grams that can be stored as extracted information in paragraph level database]
determining that one or more of the determined frequency indices associated with the n-grams of the external text-based data deviates from frequency indices of n-grams of data records corresponding to one or more auditable entities [see at least Paragraph 0329 for reference to the frequency distribution identifier 2618 can calculate frequency distributions by comparing the dictionary of N - grams to a set of tags provided to content summarization engine; Paragraph 0329 for reference to the frequency distribution identifier 2618 may calculate a frequency mean of each gram , with a mean greater than 0.5 indicating a gram of very high quality and the higher quality grams being compared to similarity]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the audit schedule system of Gerashchenko to include the event data detection procedure of Johnson. Doing so would enable users to gain valuable insight to the companies that can help inform decisions of the users, as stated by Johnson (Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 9, Gerashchenko teaches a method for dynamically updating a priority queue for scheduling data operations associated with data records [Paragraph 0031 and Figure 2]. Regarding claim 16, Gerashchenko teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium or media having stored thereon machine interpretable instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a computer-implemented method [Paragraph 0117 & Figure 11]. Therefore, claims 9 and 16 are rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of Gerashchenko, Adar, and Johnson.
Claims 5 and 13
While the combination of Gerashchenko, Adar, and Johnson disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 5, Gerashchenko discloses the following:
wherein transmitting the updated priority queue includes displaying a dynamic user interface illustrating emerging event data corresponding to shifts in data operation relevance [see at least Paragraph 0089 for reference to a simplified user interface for audit scheduling determination; Paragraph 0090 for reference to the user interface displaying outputs such as audit groups, audit schedule, change lop, and personal schedule to the user; Figure 6 and related text regarding the example user interface display]
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 7
While the combination of Gerashchenko, Adar, and Johnson disclose the limitations above, Gerashchenko does not disclose wherein the threshold value for identifying the shift in data operation relevance is a configurable threshold value.
Regarding Claim 7, Adar discloses the following:
wherein the threshold value for identifying the shift in data operation relevance is a configurable threshold value [see at least Paragraph 0067 for reference to a threshold value can be set during set-up to indicate the amount above which the alarm will be triggered or the notification will be produced in an automatic manner]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the audit scheduling system of Gerashchenko to include the configurable threshold of Adar. Doing so would efficiently detect cases where the rules of conduct are not followed without using manual handling of a vase amount of phone calls or recordings, as stated by Adar (Paragraph 0013).
Claims 8 and 15
While the combination of Gerashchenko, Adar, and Johnson disclose the limitations above, Gerashchenko does not disclose wherein the threshold value includes a first sub-threshold value and a second sub-threshold value, and wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed, configure the processor to: in response to detecting the event data meeting the first sub-threshold value, generate a signal for transmitting to a client device a notification message, in substantially real-time, an unplanned increase or a decrease in event data metrics; and in response to detecting the event data meeting the second sub-threshold value, generate the updated priority queue for scheduling the data operations.
Regarding Claim 8, Johnson discloses the following:
wherein the threshold value includes a first sub-threshold value and a second sub-threshold value [see at least Paragraph 0111 for reference to the system using a predefined threshold to search for predicted patterns; Paragraph 0112 for reference to confidence values being updated and patterns being stored]
wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed, configure the processor to: in response to detecting the event data meeting the first sub-threshold value, generate a signal for transmitting to a client device a notification message, in substantially real-time, an unplanned increase or a decrease in event data metrics [see at least Paragraph 0099 for reference to the probability of an event is greater than a predefined threshold (e.g., 0.95), the event can be determined to be a part of a pattern. A subsequent event which exceeds the predefined threshold can be considered the next event in the pattern]
in response to detecting the event data meeting the second sub-threshold value, generate the updated priority queue for scheduling the data operations [see at least Paragraph 0112 for reference to Output of the historical pattern model can be searched for classifiers meeting the predefined threshold (e.g., 0.95). If classifiers meeting the predefined threshold are located, results can be compared to the predicted patterns (i.e., the output of the future pattern model). If the newly - found classifier and an event in the predicted pattern are the same, no additional processing may be required]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the audit schedule system of Gerashchenko to include the event data threshold detection procedure of Johnson. Doing so would enable users to gain valuable insight to the companies that can help inform decisions of the users, as stated by Johnson (Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 8.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerashchenko (U.S 2018/0121484 A1) in view of Adar (U.S 2006/0089837 A1) in view of Johnson (U.S 2021/0272040 A1), as applied in claims 1 and 9, in view of Agee (U.S 2012/0259752 A1).
Claims 2 and 10
While the combination of Gerashchenko, Adar, and Johnson disclose the limitations above, they do not disclose wherein the priority weights are associated with one or more branches of a cascading data structure and include an aggregate frequency value of event occurrences associated with one or more data records associated with the respective branches.
Regarding Claim 2, Agee discloses the following:
wherein the priority weights are associated with one or more branches of a cascading data structure and include an aggregate frequency value of event occurrences associated with one or more data records associated with the respective branches [see at least Paragraph 0772 for reference to the depicted business function data structure includes some indicator, implemented as a data field or group of fields, indicting the location of the business function in the bank hierarchy; Paragraph 00773 for reference to each depicted business function data structure further includes one or more risk factor fields or data structures, which indicate risk factors that affect the business function as discussed herein and each risk factor also preferably includes some indicator of a weight associated with the risk factor, and some indicator of a score associated with the risk factor; Paragraph 0947 for reference to Item cost assumption spreadsheet 794 includes an item name indicator 7110, a frequency of occurrence indicator 7112, and a daily occurrence indicator 7114. The item name indicator denotes the type of action being performed, while the frequency of occurrence indicator 7112 specifies a basis on which the act is performed. For example, if an item does not occur at regular, predictable intervals, the frequency of occurrence indicator 7112 is marked as “transactional,” indicating that the item is conducted every time a transaction occurs]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the audit scheduling system of Gerashchenko to include the cascading data structure of Agee. Doing so would maintain a data model of controls for a best practice bank against which control activity gap assessments are conducted for client banks, as stated by Agee (Paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 4 and 12
While the combination of Gerashchenko, Adar, and Johnson disclose the limitations above, they do not disclose wherein the priority weights associated with one or more branches of a cascading data structure corresponding to an auditable entity and include a combination of scaled priority weights associated with sub-branches derived from the at least one branch corresponding to an auditable entity.
Regarding Claim 4, Agee discloses the following:
wherein the priority weights associated with one or more branches of a cascading data structure corresponding to an auditable entity and include a combination of scaled priority weights associated with sub-branches derived from the at least one branch corresponding to an auditable entity [see at least Paragraph 0772 for reference to the depicted business function data structure includes some indicator, implemented as a data field or group of fields, indicting the location of the business function in the bank hierarchy; Paragraph 00773 for reference to each depicted business function data structure further includes one or more risk factor fields or data structures, which indicate risk factors that affect the business function as discussed herein and each risk factor also preferably includes some indicator of a weight associated with the risk factor, and some indicator of a score associated with the risk factor; Paragraph 0892 for reference to bank auditors assign each risk factor a Risk Factor Weight (RFW) ranking from 1.0 to 3.0]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the audit scheduling system of Gerashchenko to include the priority weights of Agee. Doing so would maintain a data model of controls for a best practice bank against which control activity gap assessments are conducted for client banks, as stated by Agee (Paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 4.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerashchenko (U.S 2018/0121484 A1) in view of Adar (U.S 2006/0089837 A1) in view of Johnson (U.S 2021/0272040 A1) in view of Agee (U.S 2012/0259752 A1), as applied in claims 2 and 10, in view of Abrahams (U.S 2012/0296806 A1).
Claims 3 and 11
While the combination of Gerashchenko, Adar, Johnson, and Agee disclose the limitations above, they do not disclose wherein one or more of the priority weights includes a coefficient multiplier associated with the corresponding branch for biasing priority of the auditable entity corresponding to that branch of the cascading data structure.
Regarding Claim 3, Abrahams discloses the following:
wherein one or more of the priority weights includes a coefficient multiplier associated with the corresponding branch for biasing priority of the auditable entity corresponding to that branch of the cascading data structure [see at least Paragraph 0334 for reference to system updating focuses on a re-examination of the degree of risk that the system associates with various applicant profiles specified in the action table wherein a performance audit is carried out on the clients customer master file of accounts; Paragraph 0336 for reference to Direct application of optimization via a linear programming approach includes the formulation of the pertinent action table cell components as an activity n-tuple (subscripted variable), formulation of the policy objective as a function of the activity variables, with associated objective function coefficients, the specification of risk constraints based upon the cell risk index functions, and specification of bounds on marginal totals and values in the rows of the single, or multi-stage, action table that constitute the right-hand side values of the set of linear constraints]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the audit scheduling system of Gerashchenko to include the optimization multiplier of Abrahams. Doing so would determine an indication in the improvement of risk based upon a change in one or more characteristics for an entity profile, as stated by Abrahams (Paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 3.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerashchenko (U.S 2018/0121484 A1) in view of Adar (U.S 2006/0089837 A1) in view of Johnson (U.S 2021/0272040 A1), as applied in claims 1 and 9, in view of Lu (U.S 2021/0342337 A1).
Claims 6 and 14
While the combination of Gerashchenko, Adar, and Johnson disclose the limitations above, they do not disclose wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed, configure the processor to: obtain one or more data records associated with entities of respective branches of a cascading tree structure; parse event data from the one or more data records to be associated with a plurality of discrete time intervals; and generate moving average index values for respective event data for the respective data records for two or more of the plurality of discrete time intervals, and wherein detecting the event data meeting a threshold value includes: determining that the detected event data deviates from a moving average index associated with a corresponding data record of the identified auditable entity by at least the threshold value.
Regarding Claim 6, Lu discloses the following:
wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed, configure the processor to: obtain one or more data records associated with entities of respective branches of a cascading tree structure [see at least Paragraph 0389 for reference to multi-tier architecture may permit effective and efficient deployment of data input and query system (DIQS) instances with user-appropriate applications; Paragraph 0399 for reference to lower-tier monitoring applications integrate natively with the higher-tier application to provide one or more entity sharing, transition from services to entity metrics analysis, management and actions on alerts from entities in a Notable Events framework]
parse event data from the one or more data records to be associated with a plurality of discrete time intervals [see at least Paragraph 0411 for reference to the DIQS supporting the higher-tier application (the higher-tier DIQS), ingested raw data is divided into segments of raw data delineated by time segments (e.g., blocks of raw data, each associated with a specific time frame). The segments of raw data are indexed as timestamped events, corresponding to their respective time segments; Paragraph 0484 for reference to an indexer is described as parsing and indexing data during parsing and indexing phases; Paragraph 0491-495 for reference to the Parsing overview]
generate moving average index values for respective event data for the respective data records for two or more of the plurality of discrete time intervals [see at least Paragraph 0687 for reference to factors determined for each metric are combined into a single reliability score/index for the metric including simple average, weighted average, sums, or other methods of varying complexities; Paragraph 0729 for reference to the system determining an average value for the corresponding time range]
wherein detecting the event data meeting a threshold value includes: determining that the detected event data deviates from a moving average index associated with a corresponding data record of the identified auditable entity by at least the threshold value [see at least Paragraph 0442 for reference to lower-tier DIQS further receives information from a user that includes one of the criteria and a threshold value for the one of the criteria, causes a display of an interface having a representation of each entity of the operating environment, where the representation of each entity includes a value of the one of the criteria and a status indication that is based on the threshold value and the value of the one of the criteria, receives a new threshold value from the user, and dynamically updates the representation of each entity on the interface based on the new threshold value; Paragraph 0534 for reference to the StatsD collector 2422 can capture different types of metrics data including gauges, counters, timing summary statistics, and sets. As indicated above, the StatsD collector 2422 can also aggregate and summarize metrics data that has been previously summarized and reported by a StatsD collector]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the audit scheduling system of Gerashchenko to include the moving average time metrics of Lu. Doing so would allow the processing of a large volume of machine-generated data in an intelligent manner and effectively present the results, as stated by Lu (Paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 6.
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 1-16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,073,348 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims are similar to the claim scope of the instant claims. Instant claims 1, 9, and 16 are a genus to the species of claims 1, 9, and 16 of the reference claims. The claims are directed to the same statutory category of invention and are obvious variations of one another. The entire scope of instant claims 1, 9, and 16 falls within the scope of the reference claims 1, 9, and 16. Therefore, the instant claims are rendered as being not patentably distinct from reference claims 1, 9, and 16.
Regarding the dependent claims, instant dependent claims 2-8 and 10-15 are the genus of species dependent claims 2-8 and 10-15. Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,073,348 B1 fall within the claim scope of instant claims 2-8 and 10-25. Therefore, these claims are deemed to be a form of nonstatutory double patenting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sifa, Rafet, et al. "Towards automated auditing with machine learning." Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Document Engineering 2019. 2019.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 2021/0173711 A1
Crabtree et al.
Integrated value chain risk-based profiling and optimization
US 2015/0302331 A1
Randall, Stephen A.
SCHEDULING FOR ATHELETIC FACILITIES
US 2007/0156495 A1
King, Nigel
Audit Planning
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 PM 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights