DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Non-Final Office Action is in reply to the application filed on 13 September 2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5, 10-12 and 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3, 10, 17 recite the acronym AI.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 recite the acronym HR.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 recite the acronym SOPs.
Appropriate correction is required to explicitly state what the acronym refers to.
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 8 and 10-14 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.
Claim 8 recites “a computer-implemented method.” The preamble recites a computer implemented method but the body of the claim is silent to where the computer implementation takes place. Further clarification is needed as to where the computer implementation takes place.
Dependent claims 10-14 are similarly rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 8.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim recites a “computer-readable medium”. The specification is silent with regard to the composition of the computer-readable medium The Examiner is required to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation. As a result, a computer-readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory and transitory propagating signals and the claim is therefore understood to be directed to signal per se. A “signal” does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applicant may amend the claim to specify that the computer-readable medium is non-transitory.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Under Step 1 the claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03.
Claims 1-7 are directed to a system. Claims 8-14 are directed to a method. Therefore, the claims fall within the statutory categories of invention. As addressed above, claims 15-20 do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). See MPEP §2106.04.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite certain methods of organizing human activity as they include the limitations, receive user input regarding organizational redesign objectives and parameters; analyze current organizational models including people, process, and technology landscapes; generate recommendations for organizational maturity and design future state ecosystems that are secure, lean, scalable, and meet customer needs; and output a redesign plan for the organization in a phased approach based on the analysis and recommendations. This is a commercial practice that is performed by an organization to improve an organization structure and operations.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the additional elements, a processor, a memory and a computer-readable medium to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and perform generic computing functions such as receiving, analyzing, generating and outputting. In this case, the claims merely involve automated steps executed by generic computing components recited above at a high-level of generality with no technical improvement to the functioning of the computing components since the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the claimed limitations is equally generic and otherwise held to be abstract since the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and even in combination, fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application since they do not impose any non-generic meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
Even considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the claims 1, 8 and 15 do not add anything further than when they are considered separately. Thus, under Step 2B, the claims are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16 recite the additional elements, interact with users through a chatbot-enabled platform to collect detailed user inputs. This limitation provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic chatbot-enabled platform. The chatbot-enabled platform is merely invoked as a tool to receive user inputs. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 3, 10 and 17 recite, use one or more generative AI models to synthesize and map user inputs to specific redesign scenarios. The generative AI models is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the generative AI models functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of synthesizing and map user inputs to specific redesign scenarios and do not include any details about how the “synthesizing” and “mapping” are accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of using a generative model also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 4, 11 and 18 recite a mental process as they include the limitations, analyze existing people landscape using organization charts, HR documents, and compensation data to identify skill gaps and roles for future organizational structure based on human observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, either mentally or with the aid of pen/paper. The Courts generally treat collecting information as well as analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds and/or by pen & paper as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See MPEP §2106.04(a) Part III, C. The claims merely reiterate using the same additional elements as recited above for analyzing and identifying without imposing any meaningful limits. Even when viewed in combination, claims 4, 11 and 18 do no recite additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 5, 12 and 19 recite a mental process as they include the limitations, analyze existing process landscapes using process flow documents, SOPs, and business requirements to identify opportunities for efficiency improvements and automation based on human observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, either mentally or with the aid of pen/paper. The Courts generally treat collecting information as well as analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds and/or by pen & paper as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See MPEP §2106.04(a) Part III, C. The claims merely reiterate using the same additional elements as recited above for analyzing and identifying without imposing any meaningful limits. Even when viewed in combination, claims 5, 12 and 19 do no recite additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 6 and 13 recite a mental process as they include the limitations, analyze existing technology landscapes using technical requirement documents, runbooks, and architecture diagrams to understand current tech stacks and identify areas for technological advancement based on human observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, either mentally or with the aid of pen/paper. The Courts generally treat collecting information as well as analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds and/or by pen & paper as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See MPEP §2106.04(a) Part III, C. The claims merely reiterate using the same additional elements as recited above for analyzing and identifying without imposing any meaningful limits. Even when viewed in combination, claims 6 and 13 do no recite additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 7, 14 and 20 further recite certain methods of organizing human activity as they include the limitations, incorporate industry-specific knowledge and regional compliance requirements into the redesign plan to ensure adherence to relevant policies and regulations. The claims merely reiterate the same abstract idea as identified in claims 1, 8 and 15 using the same additional elements as recited above for “incorporating” without imposing any meaningful limits or any further practical application. Even when viewed in combination, claims 7, 14 and 20 do no recite additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-11, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al (US 2024/0311644 A1) in view of Nordmark et al (US 2024/0303564 A1).
Claims 1, 8 and 15: Stanley discloses a computing system comprising: a processor; and a memory having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the computing system to, a computer-implemented method and a computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that when executed cause a computer to (see [0105-0106]: computer processor, computer readable medium to perform the claimed invention):
receive user input regarding organizational redesign objectives and parameters (see [0036]: The organizational transformation lifecycle (100) begins with change management initialization (102). The change management initialization (102) process seeks to identify the desired (or required) organizational transformation and outline the transformation objectives);
analyze current organizational models including people, process (See [0037]: The stakeholder analysis determines the individuals affected by the organizational transformation, their roles, and their influence on the organizational transformation. [0059]: The organizational and user readiness assessments (230) measure, among other things, the capacity of leadership to lead change, middle management capacity, the organization's past success with organizational transformations (if previously performed), urgency, impact, and purpose );
generate recommendations for organizational maturity and design future state ecosystems that are secure, lean, scalable, and meet customer needs (See [0038]: a communication plan may indicate that a management team needs to have a face-to-face discussion with a technology team to identify perceived challenges associated with the adoption of a new information technology software. The training plan maps learning resources to stakeholders. Finally, the change management plan outlines all the steps required to realize the organizational transformation, including items listed in the communication plan, training plan, and other plans, and lists any planned deliverables. ); and
output a redesign plan for the organization in a phased approach based on the analysis and recommendations (see [0038]: a change management plan may consist of various plans and deliverables related to plans of various types for transformations across any industry or business domain).
Stanley describes at [0032]: Many categories of organizational transformations exist, such as, but not limited to: culture change; adoption of new business and/or software systems but does not expressly disclose, analyzing technology landscapes. However, Nordmark which also discloses a system and method of generating plans for a business, teaches, analyzing current technology landscapes, (see [0099] In some implementations, the plan generation system identifies a recurring resource that is present in a new plan. The recurring resource can be, for example, one or more software modules (e.g., applications or code), web services, hardware technologies, software licenses, or the like. Upon identifying the recurring resource, the plan generation system generates a prompt (e.g., a notification, a graphical indicator, a pop window, or the like) to indicate to a user that the resource already exists. In this way, the plan generation system conserves technical resources by preventing the acquisition or development of duplicative or redundant resources for a plan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the organization change management plan of Stanley, analyzing current technology landscapes as taught by Nordmark so that “the plan generation system conserves technical resources by preventing the acquisition or development of duplicative or redundant resources for a plan” (Nordmark, [0099]).
Claims 2, 9 and 16: The combination of Stanley and Nordmark discloses the claimed invention as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively. Stanley further teaches, further comprising instructions that, when executed, cause the computing system to: interact with users through a chatbot-enabled platform to collect detailed user inputs (see [0048] In accordance with one or more embodiments, input data is obtained from a user through interaction with the chatbot (204)).
Claims 3, 10 and 17: The combination of Stanley and Nordmark discloses the claimed invention as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively. Stanley further teaches, use one or more generative AI models to synthesize and map user inputs to specific redesign scenarios (see [0055]: In one or more embodiments, the chatbot (204) is coupled with an adaptive language model and/or generative language model. The language model(s) may receive a candidate query that seeks to obtain a prescribed set of input values from a user and adapt or re-write the query. Queries used in user prompts are evaluated to determine their efficacy and their effect on user experience. The evaluation of queries guides future adaptations to queries (or generated queries). Returning to FIG. 2, in one or more embodiments, the management consultant digital assistant system (200) further includes a data layer (206). In general, the data layer consists of one or more change documents (207) or change templates. The change documents (207) may include, but are not limited to: a change profile (218); a risk assessment (220); a time and cost assessment (224); one or more pulse surveys (226); a stakeholder analysis (228); and organizational and user readiness assessments (230). In general, change documents (207) encompassed by the data layer (206) organize data that details and quantifies aspects of the organizational transformation).
Claims 4, 11 and 18: The combination of Stanley and Nordmark discloses the claimed invention as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively. Stanley further teaches, analyze existing people landscape using organization charts, HR documents, and compensation data to identify skill gaps and roles for future organizational structure (See [0087]: one or more embodiments, the root cause analysis (266) evaluates changes in recorded data metrics over various data segments. Data segments may include department, type of staff, employee ID, staff position, years of experience, employee group name, office location, etc. [0092] In accordance with one or more embodiments, the user community interface (280) further allows SMEs to promote, create, and advise on training programs by flagging desired skillsets in the skills center (270) and tagging and/or uploading high quality learning resources (254) in the knowledge database (248). As such, the SMEs can advise new skills and competency training needs for users and the management consultant digital assistant system (200) can flag areas of knowledge and capabilities that need improvement and point users to training knowledge areas).
Claim 6: The combination of Stanley and Nordmark discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above. Nordmark further discloses analyze existing technology landscapes using technical requirement documents, runbooks, and architecture diagrams to understand current tech stacks and identify areas for technological advancement (see [0099]: the plan generation system can identify the recurring resource, which enables the recurring resource from the previous plan to be reused in the new plan (e.g., rather than building or acquiring the recurring resource again). The recurring resource can be, for example, one or more software modules (e.g., applications or code), web services, hardware technologies, software licenses, or the like. Upon identifying the recurring resource, the plan generation system generates a prompt (e.g., a notification, a graphical indicator, a pop window, or the like) to indicate to a user that the resource already exists. In this way, the plan generation system conserves technical resources by preventing the acquisition or development of duplicative or redundant resources for a plan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the organization change management plan of Stanley as modified by Nordmark, analyzing existing technology landscapes using technical requirement documents, runbooks, and architecture diagrams to understand current tech stacks and identify areas for technological advancement as taught by Nordmark in order to “ identify suitable emerging technologies for one or more goals, evaluating new/emerging technologies in relation to goals, meeting business and/or technical goals, improving technical and/or business performance” (Nordmark, [0022]).
Claim(s) 5, 7, 12-14, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley and Nordmark as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Rubin et al (US 2024/0296407 A1).
Claims 5, 12 and 19: The combination of Stanley and Nordmark discloses the claimed invention as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively. Stanley and Nordmark do not expressly disclose the following limitations but Rubin in the same field of endeavor teaches, analyze existing process landscapes using process flow documents, SOPs, and business requirements to identify opportunities for efficiency improvements and automation (See [0073] The system obtains (402) organizational data for an organization (e.g., via a network communication module and/or an analysis application (e.g., the analysis application 222)). In some embodiments, the organizational data includes employee data, organizational structure data (e.g., information about an organizational tree or hierarchy), forecasting data, budgeting/accounting data, operating data, and/or other types of data. [0078]: In some embodiments, a set of recommendations is presented (e.g., corresponding to different options for addressing a particular pattern, variance, or deficiency).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stanley and Nordmark with the system and method of analyzing existing process landscapes using process flow documents, SOPs, and business requirements to identify opportunities for efficiency improvements and automation as taught by Rubin because it would “allow[s] the system to provide timely and pertinent insights, empowering users to make informed decisions” ([0005], Rubin).
Claim 13: The combination of Stanley, Nordmark and Rubin discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 12 above. Nordmark further discloses analyze existing technology landscapes using technical requirement documents, runbooks, and architecture diagrams to understand current tech stacks and identify areas for technological advancement (see [0099]: the plan generation system can identify the recurring resource, which enables the recurring resource from the previous plan to be reused in the new plan (e.g., rather than building or acquiring the recurring resource again). The recurring resource can be, for example, one or more software modules (e.g., applications or code), web services, hardware technologies, software licenses, or the like. Upon identifying the recurring resource, the plan generation system generates a prompt (e.g., a notification, a graphical indicator, a pop window, or the like) to indicate to a user that the resource already exists. In this way, the plan generation system conserves technical resources by preventing the acquisition or development of duplicative or redundant resources for a plan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the organization change management plan of Stanley as modified by Nordmark and Rubin, analyzing existing technology landscapes using technical requirement documents, runbooks, and architecture diagrams to understand current tech stacks and identify areas for technological advancement as taught by Nordmark in order to “ identify suitable emerging technologies for one or more goals, evaluating new/emerging technologies in relation to goals, meeting business and/or technical goals, improving technical and/or business performance” (Nordmark, [0022]).
Claims 7, 14 and 20: The combination of Stanley and Nordmark discloses the claimed invention as applied to claims 1, 13 and 15 respectively. Stanley and Nordmark do not expressly disclose the following limitations but Rubin in the same field of endeavor teaches, incorporate industry-specific knowledge and regional compliance requirements into the redesign plan to ensure adherence to relevant policies and regulations (see [0006]: he systems described herein harvest and analyze data from diverse data sources (e.g., external data sources), including data regarding key performance indicators (KPIs), news, economic trends, competitor activity, and health and safety metrics. Using the data harvesting and analysis, the systems described herein are able to generate insightful notifications/recommendations tailored to a particular user or organization. Such notifications optionally include forecasts of upcoming events, such as fluctuations in a stock market or nascent industry trends, along with prescriptive recommendations for proactive measures users can implement to capitalize on these insights. [0089-0091]: n some embodiments of any of A1-A9, the industry data includes economic data. In some embodiments, the industry data includes location-based economic data, seasonal-based economic data, and/or industry benchmarks.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stanley and Nordmark with the system and method of incorporating industry-specific knowledge and regional compliance requirements into the redesign plan to ensure adherence to relevant policies and regulations because it would “allow[s] the system to provide timely and pertinent insights, empowering users to make informed decisions” ([0005], Rubin).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Makhija (US 20210132962 A1): [0012] In one embodiment, the present invention provides a dynamic module injector for restructuring of enterprise and/or supply chain management (SCM) application. The injector includes at least one module configured for conditionally loading on an application UI, an identifier associated with the at least one module wherein the identifier is triggered based on at least one protocol generated by an AI engine coupled to a processor and based on an AI based processing logic in response to receiving a task from a user; and a data model associated with the identifier and a plurality of metadata stored in a data repository wherein the at least one module interacts with a UI component, a platform layer, a data layer and the data repository based on the task for restructuring the application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAAME BALLOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1359. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
MAAME BALLOU
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/MAAME BALLOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights