DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on8/30/2024.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
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
This application claims priority of Provisional Application 63/579790 filed on 8/30/2023. Applicant's claim for the benefit of this prior-filed application is acknowledged, but not granted. The Provisional application lacks the details recited in the claims such as generating insights for optimization, mesh networks, and machine learning. Therefore, the priority is acknowledged, but not granted.
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 1-10 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.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 1-10 are directed toward a system; which are statutory categories of invention.
Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward a system for data management utilizing a business conceptual data model, comprising: a data processor receiving a plurality of data files from a plurality of data sources internal and external to said data processor; the data processor receiving a set of source data rules for data management from a Subject Matter Expert (SME); the data processor receiving a business glossary of customized data definitions from the SME; the data processor, under direction of said SME, linking the received source data rules to the business glossary; the data processor further comprising a business conceptual model engine process module to create a business conceptual model where said business conceptual module guides the data analysis of said plurality of data files; where the metaware process module derives business operation insights from the data analysis; and said data processor utilizes said derived business operation insights to optimize business governance methods and optimize services provided to clients of the business (Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106.05). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing received data files based on rules and definitions set forth by a SME (e.g. a human) to derive business insights about operations to provide clients optimized services, which is managing how humans interact for commercial purposes. The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Mental Processes because the claimed limitations are analyzing received data files based on rules and definitions set forth by a SME (e.g. a human) to derive business insights about operations to provide clients optimized services, which can be done in the human mind.
Dependent claims 2-10 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, where any additional elements introduced are discussed below.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the independent claims additionally recite “a system for, comprising: a data processor; the data processor further comprising a business conceptual model engine process module; where the metaware process module (claim 1)”, which are additional elements that do not 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 MPEP 2106.05) and are recited at such a high level of generality. 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 computer or other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology.
In addition, dependent claims 2-10 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 2, 4 and 8-9 additionally recite “a semantic meta generation engine (claim 2); a governance and business portal (claim 4); a centralized data electronic storage structure (claim 8); a reporting module (claim 9); provide for access to AI and/or Machine Learning (claim 9)”, which are additional elements that do not 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 MPEP 2106.05).
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). Further, System Independent claims 1-10 recite a system for, comprising: a data processor; the data processor further comprising a business conceptual model engine process module; where the metaware process module (claim 1); 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 0049. 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. 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.
In addition, claims 2-10 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 2, 4 and 8-9 additionally recite “a semantic meta generation engine (claim 2); a governance and business portal (claim 4); a centralized data electronic storage structure (claim 8); a reporting module (claim 9); provide for access to AI and/or Machine Learning (claim 9)”, which are additional elements that do not 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1-10: Claim 1 recites “the metaware process module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 10: Claim 10 recites “said mesh network”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan et al. (US 2023/0062655 A1) in view of Savalle et al. (US 2021/0360059 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Wan et al. teach a system for data management utilizing a business conceptual data model, comprising (See Figure 71, Paragraph 0120, Paragraph 0122, and claim 21):
a data processor receiving a plurality of data files from a plurality of data sources internal and external to said data processor (See Paragraph 0130, Paragraph 0133, Paragraph 0147, and Paragraph 0148);
the data processor receiving a set of source data rules for data management from a “source” (See Paragraph 0156, Paragraph 0182, Paragraph 0244, and Paragraph 0406);
the data processor receiving a business glossary of customized data definitions from the “source” (See Paragraph 0157, Paragraph 0159, Paragraph 0176, Paragraph 0186, Paragraph 0322, and Paragraph 0375);
the data processor, under direction of said “source”, linking the received source data rules to the business glossary (See Paragraph 0157, Paragraph 0159, and Paragraph 0184);
the data processor further comprising a business conceptual model engine process module to create a business conceptual model where said business conceptual module guides the data analysis of said plurality of data files (See Paragraph 0120, Paragraph 0146, Paragraph 0192, Paragraphs 0374-0376, and claim 21);
where the metaware process module derives business operation insights from the data analysis; and said data processor utilizes said derived business operation insights to optimize business governance methods and optimize services provided to clients of the business (See Paragraph 0120, Paragraph 0122, Paragraph 0146, Paragraph 0192, Paragraph 0374, and Paragraph 0391).
Wan et al. do not specifically disclose a Subject Matter Expert (SME). However, Savalle et al. further teach a Subject Matter Expert (SME) (See Paragraph 0071).
The teachings of Wan et al. and Savalle et al. are related because both are analyzing business metrics to make determinations. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data analysis system of Wan et al. to incorporate the subject matter expert of Savalle et al. in order to ensure any automated data is reviewed and verified by a human.
Regarding Claim 2: Wan et al. in view of Savalle et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Wan et al. further teach a semantic meta generation engine for creating a semantic layer of data definitions (See Paragraph 0162, Paragraph 0168, and Paragraph 0373).
Regarding Claim 3: Wan et al. in view of Savalle et al. teach the limitations of claim 2. Wan et al. further teach where the semantic layer is transmitted to a business conceptual model generation engine to process incoming data for inclusion in the creation of said business conceptual model (See Figure 5, Paragraph 0162, Paragraphs 0168-0169, and Paragraph 0373).
Regarding Claim 4: Wan et al. in view of Savalle et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Wan et al. further teach a governance and business portal within said data process (See Figure 22, Figure 33, Paragraph 0130, Paragraph 0157, Paragraph 0159, Paragraph 0320, Paragraph 0346, and Paragraph 0434).
Regarding Claim 5: Wan et al. in view of Savalle et al. teach the limitations of claim 4. Wan et al. further teach where said governance and business portal is operative to capture business data sources, define a business data definition glossary, define business and data quality rules, and standardize and manage reference data under the guidance of said “source” (See Figure 22, Figure 33, Paragraph 0130, Paragraph 0157, Paragraph 0159, Paragraph 0320, Paragraph 0346, and Paragraph 0434).
Wan et al. do not specifically disclose a Subject Matter Expert (SME). However, Savalle et al. further teach a Subject Matter Expert (SME) (See Paragraph 0071).
The teachings of Wan et al. and Savalle et al. are related because both are analyzing business metrics to make determinations. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data analysis system of Wan et al. to incorporate the subject matter expert of Savalle et al. in order to ensure any automated data is reviewed and verified by a human.
Regarding Claim 6: Wan et al. in view of Savalle et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Wan et al. do not specifically disclose the following. However, Savalle et al. further teach a bridge exchange mesh network operative to foster sharing and collaboration between mesh nodes operative within and connected to said bridge exchange mesh network (See Figure 1B, Paragraph 0012, Paragraph 0023, Paragraph 0026, and Paragraph 0027).
The teachings of Wan et al. and Savalle et al. are related because both are analyzing business metrics to make determinations. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data analysis system of Wan et al. to incorporate the mesh network of Savalle et al. in order to analyze how different aspects interact with one another in the business.
Regarding Claim 7: Wan et al. in view of Savalle et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Wan et al. further teach where said business governance optimization further comprises optimizing data analysis, security controls and policies, audit and compliance, and data lineage and transmits optimized business processes to a centralized data team within said business (See Paragraph 0120, Paragraph 0122, Paragraph 0141, Paragraph 0146, Paragraph 0192, Paragraph 0320, Paragraph 0374, Paragraph 0391, and Paragraph 0432).
Regarding Claim 8: Wan et al. in view of Savalle et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Wan et al. further teach a centralized data electronic storage structure to maintain an operational data store for the business, provide one or more data marts for client data access, and provide data syndication for internal and external clients and stakeholders (See Figure 22, Figure 33, Paragraph 0127, Table 3, Paragraph 0318, Paragraph 0320, Paragraph 0393, and Paragraph 0432).
Regarding Claim 9: Wan et al. in view of Savalle et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Wan et al. further teach a reporting module within said data processor to permit business tableau creation and use, provide access to one or more applications operative within said data processor, and provide for access to AI and/or Machine Learning training data models (See Paragraph 0146, Paragraph 0165, Paragraph 0169, Paragraph 0193, Paragraph 0235, Paragraph 0246, and claim 21).
Regarding Claim 10: Wan et al. in view of Savalle et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Wan et al. further teach network dedicated to business operation departments including finance, backoffice, risk, and operations to provide for trust and collaboration among business units and the centralized data team connected through said network (See Paragraph 0120, Paragraph 0141, Paragraph 0163, and Paragraph 0202).
Wan et al. do not specifically disclose a plurality of mesh nodes on said mesh network. However, Savalle et al. further teach a plurality of mesh nodes on said mesh network (See Figure 1B, Paragraph 0012, Paragraph 0023, Paragraph 0026, and Paragraph 0027).
The teachings of Wan et al. and Savalle et al. are related because both are analyzing business metrics to make determinations. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the data analysis system of Wan et al. to incorporate the mesh network of Savalle et al. in order to analyze how different aspects interact with one another in the business.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892 and should be taken into account / considered by the Applicant upon reviewing this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on (571)-270-5389. 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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625