DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This communication is a final action in response to communications filed on 12/15/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), without providing a practical application integration and without providing significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claims 16-19 are directed to a method (i.e., process), Claims 1-7 are directed to an apparatus (i.e., machine), Claim 20 is directed to a product, which are statutory categories of invention.
As per Step 2A-Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claims 1, 16, and 20 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of compliance task management by parsing a file comprising compliance information to identify at least one compliance task; creating at least one compliance object based on compliance information for the at least one compliance task; and assigning the at least one compliance object to at least one user configured to complete the at least one compliance task, generate a unique code for an asset associated with the at least one compliance task, the unique code linked to the compliance object, generate a workflow for completing the at least one compliance task based on dependencies between compliance tasks; and provide the workflow to an {algorithm} configured to optimize execution of the workflow by at least one of prioritizing compliance tasks, sequencing compliance tasks based on dependencies, allocating tasks among users based on workload or availability, or adjusting scheduling parameters to reduce compliance risk, all of which include mental processes (observing and evaluating compliance information to make a judgement/opinion on assigning a compliance object/task to a user), and certain methods of organizing human activities, specifically fundamental economic practice (compliance risk mitigation), managing personal behavior and interactions (following rules and instructions to assign a compliance task/object to a user and optimize a workflow). Claims 2-15, 17-19 are further directed to the abstract idea of performing functions provided above for claims 1 and 16 with further details/embellishments of the abstract idea. After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per Step 2A-Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 1-20 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as apparatus, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor that is coupled to the memory and is configured to cause the apparatus to {perform functions of the invention}, “wherein the unique code comprises a scannable code that comprises a link to the at least one compliance object comprising information for the at least one compliance task associated with the asset”, using an artificial intelligence engine, an artificial intelligence engine, graphical interface, provide a generative artificial intelligence interface, a program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores code executable by a processor, the executable code comprising code for {performing functions of the invention}, these limitations are not enough to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 1-20 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as apparatus, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor that is coupled to the memory and is configured to cause the apparatus to {perform functions of the invention}, “wherein the unique code comprises a scannable code that comprises a link to the at least one compliance object comprising information for the at least one compliance task associated with the asset”, using an artificial intelligence engine, an artificial intelligence engine, graphical interface, provide a generative artificial intelligence interface, a program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores code executable by a processor, the executable code comprising code for {performing functions of the invention}, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-20 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Spirer (US 20190348174 A1) in view of Hatfield et al (US 20230153711 A1).
As per Claim 1, Spirer teaches an apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor that is coupled to the memory and is configured to cause the apparatus (para. 0004) to:
parse a file comprising compliance information to identify at least one compliance task (para. 0068, “the field module 202 parses the compliance policy, using natural language processing, regular expressions, and/or other text processing methods, to identify different compliance tasks and requirements for completing the compliance tasks, and generates form fields for gathering or collecting information for the compliance task. For instance, the field module 202 may identify that a compliance task that requires the user to enter an expiration date, a supervisor name, and a date that the last compliance task was completed. The field module 202 may identify these requirements (e.g., if formatted as a question in the compliance policy) and may generate labels and fields for gathering this information in a web form or other electronic form.”);
create at least one compliance object based on compliance information for the at least one compliance task (para. 0068, “the field module 202 parses the compliance policy, using natural language processing, regular expressions, and/or other text processing methods, to identify different compliance tasks and requirements for completing the compliance tasks, and generates form fields for gathering or collecting information for the compliance task. For instance, the field module 202 may identify that a compliance task that requires the user to enter an expiration date, a supervisor name, and a date that the last compliance task was completed. The field module 202 may identify these requirements (e.g., if formatted as a question in the compliance policy) and may generate labels and fields for gathering this information in a web form or other electronic form.”); and
assign the at least one compliance object to at least one user configured to complete the at least one compliance task (para. 0033, “…assign one or more users to the compliance task associated with the compliance template such that the one or more users are the only users allowed to enter compliance information into the compliance template to complete the compliance task”);
generate a unique scannable code for an asset associated with the at least one compliance task, the unique scannable code linked to the compliance object (para. 0067, “the equipment may be identified using an identification tag (e.g., an RFID tag, a barcode, a QR code, a wireless signal (e.g., a Bluetooth® signal), an IP or MAC address, and/or the like) that is located on the equipment. In such an embodiment, a location service may be used to determine the location of the equipment within a building, on a floor, etc., and display the equipment's location on a map that is included in the compliance template”);
generate a workflow for completing the at least one compliance task based on dependencies between compliance tasks (para. 0086, “In one embodiment, the work order module 310 is configured to generate one or more work orders, requests for proposals, or the like for third-party vendors based on the compliance task and the schedule for completing the compliance task. ”);
provide the workflow to optimize execution of the workflow by at least one of prioritizing compliance tasks, sequencing compliance tasks based on dependencies, allocating tasks among users based on workload or availability, or adjusting scheduling parameters to reduce compliance risk (para. 0086, “the work order module 310 is configured to generate one or more work orders, requests for proposals, or the like for third-party vendors based on the compliance task and the schedule for completing the compliance task. As used herein, a work order may be a request to complete a task or job as it relates to the compliance task and may be generated for maintenance services, inspection services, equipment management services, and/or the like. For instance, if the elevators in a hospital need to be serviced, the work order module 310 may generate and send a work order request to an elevator service company that the hospital has approved as a third-party vendor for the hospital. The work order module 310 may check the deadline for completing the compliance check and send the work order some time prior to the deadline so that the third-party vendor has time to schedule and prepare to work on the compliance task.”).
Spirer does not teach; however, Hatfield teaches provide the workflow to an artificial intelligence engine configured to optimize execution of the workflow (para. 0015, 0029, 0084, “for the purposes of providing optimized workflows, natural language processing methods of artificial intelligence may be applied”, “the artificial intelligence model 203 to optimize the workflow”).
Before the earliest effective filing date of this application, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Spirer with these aforementioned teachings from Hatfield, in the field of workflow optimization, with the motivation for more efficient workflow for the users to follow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date of this application, to include the features as taught by analogous art Hatfield in the method and system of Spirer, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would have predictable results such as more efficient workflow for the users to follow.
As per Claim 2, Spirer in view of Hatfield teaches an apparatus as provided in claim 1 above. Spirer further teaches wherein the at least one compliance task is associated with a location (para. 0032, “assign the compliance template to a building of an organization. The template may include one of a plurality of templates assigned to the building and associated with different compliance tasks for the building. In some embodiments, the code is further executable by the processor to parse the compliance policy using natural language processing to identify different compliance tasks and requirements for completing a compliance task and automatically generate the information that defines the one or more form fields for the compliance template based on the identified requirements for the compliance tasks”).
As per Claim 3, Spirer in view of Hatfield teaches an apparatus as provided in claim 2 above. Spirer further teaches wherein the location comprises at least one of a building, a floor, or a room (para. 0078, “assign the compliance template to a building, wing, floor, center, room, or the like of an organization. For example, the compliance template may be assigned to the building where the emergency room is located, to the floor of the hospital where the trauma center is located, and/or the like. In such an embodiment, the organization, e.g., the hospital, may maintain a master template that includes each of the sub-templates for each building or other part of the physical structure or layout of the organization. Thus, the template may be one of a plurality of templates that are assigned to the building and associated with different compliance tasks for the building”).
As per Claim 4, Spirer in view of Hatfield teaches an apparatus as provided in claim 2 above. Spirer teaches wherein the at least one compliance task is associated with an asset at the location (para. 0045, “For example, the compliance task may be to check the status of fire extinguishers on a floor of a hospital.”).
As per Claim 5, Spirer in view of Hatfield teaches an apparatus as provided in claim 4 above. Spirer teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to generate a unique code for the asset (para. 0067, “the equipment may be identified using an identification tag (e.g., an RFID tag, a barcode, a QR code, a wireless signal (e.g., a Bluetooth® signal), an IP or MAC address, and/or the like)”).
As per Claim 6, Spirer in view of Hatfield teaches an apparatus as provided in claim 5 above. Spirer teaches wherein the unique code comprises a scannable code that comprises a link to the at least one compliance object comprising information for the at least one compliance task associated with the asset (para. 0067, “the equipment may be identified using an identification tag (e.g., an RFID tag, a barcode, a QR code, a wireless signal (e.g., a Bluetooth® signal), an IP or MAC address, and/or the like) that is located on the equipment. In such an embodiment, a location service may be used to determine the location of the equipment within a building, on a floor, etc., and display the equipment's location on a map that is included in the compliance template”).
As per Claim 8, Spirer in view of Hatfield teaches an apparatus as provided in claim 1 above. Spirer teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to generate a compliance schedule for the at least one compliance task (para. 0081-0082, regarding the scheduling module and its functions).
As per Claim 9, Spirer in view of Hatfield teaches an apparatus as provided in claim 8 above. Spirer teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to notify the user assigned to complete the at least one compliance task at least once prior to a completion deadline for the at least one compliance task based on the compliance schedule (para. 0083, “the scheduling module 306 may generate and send one or more reminders, push notifications, alerts, emails, text messages, chat messages, and/or the like for completing the compliance tasks. The scheduling module 306 may set different points in time for sending reminders, such as one week before the deadline, two weeks before the deadline, one month before the deadline, three months before the deadline, semi-annually, annually, and/or the like, and/or any combination of the foregoing.”).
As per Claim 10, Spirer in view of Hatfield teaches an apparatus as provided in claim 8 above. Spirer teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to generate a workflow for completing the at least one compliance task based on the compliance schedule (para. 0086, “In one embodiment, the work order module 310 is configured to generate one or more work orders, requests for proposals, or the like for third-party vendors based on the compliance task and the schedule for completing the compliance task. ”).
As per Claim 11, Spirer in view of Hatfield teaches an apparatus as provided in claim 10 above. Spirer teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to optimize the workflow based on dependencies between the at least one compliance task (para. 0086, “the work order module 310 is configured to generate one or more work orders, requests for proposals, or the like for third-party vendors based on the compliance task and the schedule for completing the compliance task. As used herein, a work order may be a request to complete a task or job as it relates to the compliance task and may be generated for maintenance services, inspection services, equipment management services, and/or the like. For instance, if the elevators in a hospital need to be serviced, the work order module 310 may generate and send a work order request to an elevator service company that the hospital has approved as a third-party vendor for the hospital. The work order module 310 may check the deadline for completing the compliance check and send the work order some time prior to the deadline so that the third-party vendor has time to schedule and prepare to work on the compliance task.”).
As per Claim 12, Spirer teaches an apparatus as provided in claim 10 above. Spirer does not completely teach; however, Hatfield teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to provide the workflow to an artificial intelligence engine for optimization (para. 0015, 0029, 0084, “for the purposes of providing optimized workflows, natural language processing methods of artificial intelligence may be applied”, “the artificial intelligence model 203 to optimize the workflow”).
Before the earliest effective filing date of this application, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Spirer with these aforementioned teachings from Hatfield, in the field of workflow optimization, with the motivation for more efficient workflow for the users to follow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date of this application, to include the features as taught by analogous art Hatfield in the method and system of Spirer, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would have predictable results such as more efficient workflow for the users to follow.
As per Claim 13, Spirer in view of Hatfield teaches an apparatus as provided in claim 1 above. Spirer teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to present the compliance information for the at least one compliance task for the at least one compliance object on a graphical interface (para. 0082, “The scheduling module 306 may be graphically displayed as a timeline, a calendar, and/or the like that includes reminders and deadlines for the compliance tasks that need to be completed, or that have already been completed. Furthermore, the scheduling module 306 may include a color scheme for different deadlines for the compliance tasks. For example, if a compliance task is complete it may show up as green, if a compliance task is late (past the deadline) it may show up as red, reminders may show up as yellow, orange, or the like based on the time between the reminder and the scheduled deadline date, and/or the like. In this manner, a user can quickly see the complete schedule for completion of a compliance task”).
As per Claim 14, Spirer in view of Hatfield teaches an apparatus as provided in claim 13 above. Spirer teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to visually highlight the at least one compliance task based on state of the at least one compliance task (para. 0082, “The scheduling module 306 may be graphically displayed as a timeline, a calendar, and/or the like that includes reminders and deadlines for the compliance tasks that need to be completed, or that have already been completed. Furthermore, the scheduling module 306 may include a color scheme for different deadlines for the compliance tasks. For example, if a compliance task is complete it may show up as green, if a compliance task is late (past the deadline) it may show up as red, reminders may show up as yellow, orange, or the like based on the time between the reminder and the scheduled deadline date, and/or the like. In this manner, a user can quickly see the complete schedule for completion of a compliance task”).
As per Claim 15, Spirer teaches an apparatus as provided in claim 1 above. While Spirer teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to provide an interface for receiving prompts related to the at least one compliance task (para. 0047, “The task apparatus 104 may create templates by receiving information that defines one or more form fields of the compliance template based on the compliance task. The information is derived from a compliance policy, manual, workbook, or the like. The task apparatus 104, in further embodiments, includes one or more interactive multimedia elements in the compliance template that are associated with at least one of the one or more form fields. The task apparatus 104, in some embodiments, electronically presents the compliance template during the compliance task to gather compliance information related to the compliance task.”; para. 0054, “A hardware appliance of the task apparatus 104 may include a power interface, a wired and/or wireless network interface, a graphical interface that attaches to a display, and/or a semiconductor integrated circuit device as described below, configured to perform the functions described herein with regard to the task apparatus 104”); Spirer does not teach artificial intelligence; however, Hatfield teaches to provide a generative artificial intelligence interface for receiving prompts related to the at least one task (para. 0084, “Still referring to FIG. 2, in some embodiments, a third round of inputs is ingested into the artificial intelligence model 203 to optimize the workflow.”).
Before the earliest effective filing date of this application, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Spirer with these aforementioned teachings from Hatfield, in the field of workflow optimization, with the motivation for more efficient and accurate tasks/workflow for the users to follow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date of this application, to include the features as taught by analogous art Hatfield in the method and system of Spirer, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would have predictable results such as more efficient and accurate tasks/workflow for the users to follow.
As per claims 16-19, claims 16-19 recite substantially similar limitations as claims 1-4, respectively; therefore, claims 16-19 are rejected with the same reasoning and rationale provided above for claims 1-4, respectively.
As per claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1; therefore, claim 20 is rejected with the same reasoning and rationale provided above for claim 1.
As per claim 20, Spirer further teaches a program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores code executable by a processor, the executable code comprising code for {performing functions of the invention} (para. 0006)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Spirer (US 20190348174 A1) in view of Hatfield et al (US 20230153711 A1) in view of Lockett et al (US 20240144338 A1).
As per Claim 7, Spirer in view of Hatfield teaches an apparatus as provided in claim 4 above. While Spirer teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to process an image of the location to identify at least one asset at the location and provide compliance information for the at least one asset from the at least one compliance object associated with the at least one asset (para. 0046, “The template may also include interactive multimedia video, images, slideshows, or the like that may show the user how to check the fire extinguisher, may help the user locate the fire extinguisher, or the like. The interactive multimedia content may include survey questions, for example, such as “did you check the expiration date?”, “did you remember to check the level of the fire extinguisher?”, “are there any objects obstructing the path to the fire extinguisher?”, and/or the like. ”; para. 0052, “In certain embodiments, the task apparatus 104 is embodied as a mobile program, application, or the like that can be a web application, for instance, and is downloadable. In such an embodiment, the mobile application may be optimized for integration with third-party systems and includes an interactive image of the hospital floor plan that includes blueprints for sprinkler systems, exit signs, exit doors, etc. that are highlighted using hotspots that present questions, surveys, forms, reports, data, etc. when the hotspots are interacted with on the map. The map may be included on a compliance template so that the user can locate and gain more information on the location of the compliance task, equipment at the location, and/or the like. Furthermore, as the user walks the physical layout of the hospital, the user can capture pictures of any defective sprinklers, exit signs, exit doors, etc., and then update the interactive image/map of the floor plan so that up-to-date information is available prior to a user going out to inspect the hospital floor with a physical inspection.”; also see para. 0034, 0063); Spirer does not teach using an artificial intelligence engine; however, Lockett teaches to process an image of the location using an artificial intelligence engine to identify at least one asset at the location (para. 0043, “The item identification system 110 may include one or more server devices (or other similar computing devices) for executing item identification services of the provider. As described in detail elsewhere herein, example item identification services may include image processing to identify one or more items present in an image of the physical environment that includes the plurality of items. The image may be captured by the one or more cameras 140 of the first computing device 102 and provided to the item identification system 110 over the network 104 via the application 134 (e.g., the image may be livestreamed). Additionally, the location of the first computing device 102 determined by the location-determining device 142 may be provided to facilitate the item identification. One or more trained machine learning models may be deployed to process the image to perform the item identification. In some examples, the machine learning models may be trained by the item identification system 110 and stored in a data store of the item identification system 110 and/or the data storage system 114. Additionally, different machine learning models may be trained for different types of items associated with different types of merchants (e.g., a first machine learning model trained to identify furniture items, a second machine learning item trained to identify clothing items, and so on). In other examples, one or more of the machine learning models may be trained by a third party, and provided to the item identification system 110 for storage and deployment. For example, one or more of the machine learning models may be trained by a respective merchant system (e.g., of the merchant systems 122) to identify merchant-specific items. In some examples, the item identification services may further include determining a spatial location of the items identified in the image by the trained machine learning models.”).
Before the earliest effective filing date of this application, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Spirer with these aforementioned teachings from Lockett, in the field of items in a physical environment, with the motivation to expedite identification of the asset for the user assigned to complete the task.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date of this application, to include the features as taught by analogous art Lockett in the method and system of Spirer, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would have predictable results such as expedited identification of the asset for the user assigned to complete the task.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered. Details are provided below.
Arguments on rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicants argued that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of mental processes (observing and evaluating compliance information to make a judgement/opinion on assigning a compliance object/task to a user), and certain methods of organizing human activities, specifically fundamental economic practice (compliance risk mitigation), managing personal behavior and interactions (following rules and instructions to assign a compliance task/object to a user and optimize a workflow).
Applicants also argued that the claims provide a practical application or significantly more that the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
AI is recited at a high level of generality. Applicant’s claims do not pertain to the fact pattern of eligible claims of examples 47-49.
Arguments on rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103:
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been withdrawn and replaced with rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
Additional prior not relied upon includes:
Creager et al (US 20230245064 A1), regarding “[0112] In some embodiments, the EIM application generates a user dashboard filter which allows users a quick method of filtering tasks, compliance, and events represented by smart data objects that are assigned to and/or includes the user. [0125] The EIM application uniquely allows activities such as Tasks, Events and Compliance to be linked (as smart data objects) along with any required Documents to automatically create a dynamic digital record.”;
Bates et al (US 20230144362 A1), regarding “[0127] FIG. 11 also illustrates that the compliance management computing system 102 performs an act 1102 of generating an assessment to obtain the missing attribute values(s) for one or more data objects… The client device can thus provide a user associated with a particular compliance initiative with an easy, user-friendly way to see the status of each task assigned to the user (or to a group including the user).”;
Wilson et al (US 20220251817 A1), regarding “ransmitting the one or more alerts, notifications and tasks to the plurality of users based on their assigned responsibilities; and receiving compliance activity information from the plurality of users relating to actions taken by the plurality of users to comply with the SCP… system for reporting to managers and other users to create additional tasks and activities, complete forms, submit evidence of compliance actions or request additional information or resources… Those forms and actions are then displayed on the dashboard and can be pushed out to the relevant users who have been assigned the specific tasks relevant to compliance…”;
ZHAO et al (WO 2024035658 A1), regarding “[0021] Existing systems and methods of object identification and tracking use various sensing modalities, e.g., lidars, radars, cameras, etc., to obtain images of the environment. The images can then be processed by trained machine learning models to identify locations of various objects in the images (e.g., in the form of bounding boxes), state of motion of the objects (e.g., speed, as detected by lidar or radar Doppler effect-based sensors), type of the object (e.g., a vehicle or pedestrian), and so on. Motion of objects (or any other evolution, such as splitting of a single object into multiple objects) can be performed by creating and maintaining tracks associated with a particular object.”.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHMET YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)272-3257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 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, 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.
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624