DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to correspondence received June 4, 2026.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended. Claims 3, 7, 10, 14, 17, and 20 are canceled. Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15, and 18-19 are pending and have been examined. And have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 4, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant recites “through graphical user interface.” Should be through a graphical user interface. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s)
Claims 1, 8, and 15, which are similar in scope, recite the following abstract idea:
A method, comprising the steps of: selecting, (i) an industry type from a list of industry types including banking and financial services, consumer packaged goods, energy and resources, healthcare, high-tech and professional services, insurance, life sciences, manufacturing, media and information services, retail, telecom, travel, transportation and hospitality, and utilities, (ii) an enterprise operation of one or more enterprise operations associated with each industry type, and (iii) an enterprise persona of one or more enterprise personas associated with each enterprise operation of the one or more enterprise operations, whose maturity is to be assessed and a performance is to be optimized and the one or more enterprise operations comprises one or more defined business operations and one or more defined information technology (IT) operations wherein the industry type, the enterprise operation and the enterprise persona is selected by a user; populating dynamically one after other, one or more performance evaluators, based on an industry type, the enterprise operation, and the enterprise persona selected, whose maturity is to be assessed and the performance is to be optimized; providing, an individual performance value for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators, wherein the individual performance value for each performance evaluator is an actual performance level and provided from a predefined performance range defined for each performance evaluator; computing, an individual maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators, based on (i) the individual performance value for an associated performance evaluator, (ii) a plurality of maturity levels defined for the associated performance evaluator, and (iii) one or more maturity ratings defined for the associated performance evaluator, wherein the plurality of maturity levels pertains to initial (Li), resilient (L2), adaptive (L), and cognitive (L4), and wherein the initial (L) is a lowest maturity level and the cognitive (L4) is a highest maturity level; calculating, , an enterprise operation maturity score for each enterprise operation selected, based on the individual maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators, wherein the one or more performance evaluators are key performance indicators for the enterprise operation, wherein the enterprise operation maturity score for selected enterprise operation is calculated by aggregating the individual maturity score of all performance evaluators; and dynamically providing, , one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator, based on the individual maturity score for the associated performance evaluator, to improve the maturity score for each enterprise operation selected, wherein the one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator defined for either an incremental improvement or a best-in-class level improvement in the individual maturity score of each enterprise operation selected, wherein when the current maturity level of the enterprise operation through each performance evaluators stands at initial (Li), then the one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator are defined for either the incremental improvement as the resilient (L2), or the best-in-class level improvement as the cognitive (L4) in the individual maturity score of each enterprise operation selected, wherein the one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator, the enterprise operation maturity score of each enterprise operation and the individual maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators are stored for further use of providing a list of recommended solutions to achieve improvement in individual metric performance, includes a plurality of questionnaires that are defined to measure the performance of the enterprise operations and each persona type, wherein the questionnaire selected is related to the enterprise operation, contains the recommended solution sets for each performance evaluator corresponding to maturity resilient, adaptive and cognitive; simulating, the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator, to validate the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator, wherein the simulation comprises: choosing one or more relevant recommended solutions for each performance evaluator out of the one or more recommended solutions provided for the associated performance evaluator based on a relevance; computing an individual simulated maturity score for each performance evaluator, based on (i) a current individual performance metric for the associated performance evaluator, (ii) the plurality of maturity levels defined for the associated performance evaluator, (iii) the one or more relevant recommended solutions provided for the associated performance evaluator, and(iv) an impact weight value defined for each of the one or more relevant recommended solutions provided for the associated performance evaluator; calculating an enterprise operation simulated maturity score for each enterprise operation, based on the individual simulated maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators, to allow for optimizing performance of each enterprise operation, wherein the enterprise operation simulated maturity score for the selected enterprise operation is calculated by aggregating the simulated maturity score of all the performance evaluators; receiving a target enterprise operation maturity score to achieve for each enterprise operation; dynamically provide the one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator, based on a current enterprise operation maturity score and the target enterprise operation maturity score; implementing the one or more recommended solutions validated by the simulation for each performance evaluator and optimizing performance of each enterprise operation based on the implementation; [presenting] the one or more recommended solutions in an enterprise operation maturity assessment report wherein the enterprise operation maturity assessment report includes the enterprise operation maturity score of each enterprise operation and laggards and best-in-class benchmarks for the individual maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators; and determining one or more potential benefits for each of the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator, using a benefit computation algorithm, wherein the one or more potential benefits are potential outcomes after optimizing the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator.
These steps are a mental process as they can be performed, one after another, mentally, or with pen and paper. This includes dynamic steps, for mental processes are inherently dynamic, as one formulates thoughts then expresses them, which is dynamic (“dynamically, one after the other..”). The simulation is a mental process because as presented above it is a series of evaluation and judgement steps that one could do dynamically with one’s mind or with pen and paper. These steps are also a certain method of organizing human activity – business relations, as these are steps to evaluate performance of various aspects of an enterprise. Additionally, the steps describe a certain method of organizing human activity, commercial interaction because the steps are for evaluating a business, which could be used for selling or financing a business. Therefore, the steps are a patent ineligible abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements in combination amount to no more than applying generic computing components and machinery used in its ordinary capacity to the abstract idea. This is both alone and in combination. In combination, the elements of generic computing (‘processor implemented; system; CRM) plus storing in a knowledge engine that has cognitive intelligence for performing a plurality of features and dynamic decision making; and displaying in a GUI, amount to a computer with a GUI display and storing in a knowledge engine that has various capabilities. In other words, a computer with a screen and an engine element that has software on it that is only defined in terms of its functional result as well as the ability to store data (for example, accessing stored data on a drive). This is tantamount to reciting a computer with software and data stored on it. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1-2).
The additional elements of claim 1 are:
processor-implemented
via one or more hardware processors x 7
stored in a knowledge engine
wherein the knowledge engine includes cognitive intelligence for performing a plurality of features and dynamic decision making wherein the knowledge engine
wherein the knowledge engine
displaying, through graphical user interface,
The additional elements of claim 8 are:
A system comprising: a memory storing instructions; one or more input/output (I/O) interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more I/O interfaces, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to
stored in a knowledge engine
wherein the knowledge engine includes cognitive intelligence for performing a plurality of features and dynamic decision making wherein the knowledge engine
wherein the knowledge engine
displaying, through graphical user interface,
The additional elements of claim 15:
One or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause:
stored in a knowledge engine
wherein the knowledge engine includes cognitive intelligence for performing a plurality of features and dynamic decision making wherein the knowledge engine
wherein the knowledge engine
displaying, through graphical user interface,
As these amount to no more than instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer, they are not a practical application of the abstract idea
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the reasoning in prong 2 (practical application) is carried over here. For the same reasons that it is not a practical application that the combination of elements amounts to applying an abstract idea to a computer, it is not significantly more.
Therefore, the independent claims recite patent ineligible subject matter.
Claims , 4-6, 11-13, and 18-19 further define the abstract idea. A simulation is merely stepping through rules, under a broadest reasonable interpretation. See for example how the simulation is defined at the end of the independent claims, merely a series of steps one could follow mentally, or on paper, or alternatively as a commercial interaction as a certain method of organizing human activity (evaluating a business).
Therefore, claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Response to Remarks:
Applicant remarks in italics, Examiner response in plain:
Applicant humbly requests the Examiner consider the claims under the revised guidelines, when identifying a concept as a judicial exception. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are not directed to an abstract idea: Step 1: Claiming a process and a machine
This has been done for Applicant each time. At no point does Applicant ever identify anything that was not followed in the revised guidelines.
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's contentions, and humbly submits that the amended claims cannot be construed as mental processes.
Applicant's claimed subject matter includes optimizing performance of enterprise operations using maturity assessment.
. Referring to Example 39 "Method for Training a Neural Network for Facial Detection" in Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, Applicant referred to pages 8-9 stating that under Step-2A analysis it is explicitly mentioned that "The claim does not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 PEG. For instance, the claim does not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations. While some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims. Further, the claim does not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind. Finally, the claim does not recite any method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Thus, the claim is eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception ".
In line with Example 39, the claimed subject matter provides optimizing performance of enterprise operations using maturity assessment in several steps including selection of industry type, the enterprise operation and the enterprise persona via the one or more hardware processors by the user, populating dynamically via the one or more hardware processors an individual performance value for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators, providing, via the one or more hardware processors, an individual performance value for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators , computing via one or more hardware processors , an individual maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators, based on (i) the individual performance value for an associated performance evaluator, (ii) a plurality of maturity levels defined for the associated performance evaluator, and (iii) one or more maturity ratings defined for the associated performance evaluator, calculating, via one or more hardware processor an enterprise operation maturity score for each enterprise operation selected, based on the individual maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators by aggregating the individual metric maturity score of all performance evaluator and dynamically providing, via one or more hardware processor one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator, based on the individual maturity score for the associated performance evaluator, to improve the maturity score for each enterprise operation selected, simulating, via the one or more hardware processors, the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator, to validate the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator. Then further calculating enterprise operation simulated maturity score and optimizing for performance, for each enterprise operation by aggregating the simulated maturity score of all performance evaluators. And finally determine, one or more potential benefits for each of the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator, using a benefit computation algorithm. Applicant asserts that the claim does not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind rather performed by the hardware processors for optimizing performance of enterprise operations using maturity assessment. Applicant asserts that dynamic population of multiple performance evaluators, aggregation of multiple metric level maturity score, running optimization, simulation and Optimization against a target enterprise maturity score requires a computer and cannot be performed in the human mind. The claimed steps cannot be viewed individually, the claimed steps as a whole are providing a technical solution of optimizing performance of enterprise operations using maturity Therefore, considering the above-mentioned arguments, it is clear that the invention is not a mental act as it cannot be performed by a human mind.
Applicant then argues Example 39 which is not similar as there is no neural networking improvement nor analog. The only improvement, which is non technical here, is to a process for optimizing enterprise operation maturity assessment report and other terms, all of which can be seen in the identified abstract idea in the rejection above. Applicant has provided no evidence for why the identified steps could not be performed by the human mind. Each of these are merely quantitative and qualitative assessments that can be performed by simple math and recording observations. Therefore the abstract idea finding is maintained.
Step 2A- Prong 2: Claims recite a method for optimizing performance of enterprise operations using maturity assessment thereby integrate the exception into practical application based on combination of additional elements.
Applicant asserts that amended claim 1 of the present application states "populating dynamically one after other, via the one or more hardware processors, one or more performance evaluators, based on an industry type, the enterprise operation, and the enterprise persona selected, whose maturity is to be assessed and the performance is to be optimized;" calculating, via the one or more hardware processors, an enterprise operation maturity score for each enterprise operation selected, based on the individual maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators, wherein the one or more performance evaluators are key performance indicators for the enterprise operation, wherein the enterprise operation maturity score for selected enterprise operation is calculated by aggregating the individual maturity score of all performance evaluators;"
"simulating, via the one or more hardware processors, the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator, to validate the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator, wherein the simulation comprises:
choosing one or more relevant recommended solutions for each performance evaluator out of the one or more recommended solutions provided for the associated performance evaluator based on a relevance;
computing an individual simulated maturity score for each performance evaluator, based on (i) a current individual performance metric for the associated performance evaluator, (ii) the plurality of maturity levels defined for the associated performance evaluator, (iii) the one or more relevant recommended solutions provided for the associated performance evaluator, and
(iv) an impact weight value defined for each of the one or more relevant recommended solutions provided for the associated performance evaluator ;" "calculating an enterprise operation simulated maturity score for each enterprise operation, based on the individual simulated maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators, to allow for optimizing performance of each enterprise operation wherein the enterprise operation simulated maturity score for the selected enterprise operation is calculated by aggregating the simulated maturity score of all the performance evaluators;
receiving a target enterprise operation maturity score to achieve for each enterprise operation;
dynamically provide the one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator, based on a current enterprise operation maturity score and the target enterprise operation maturity score; implementing the one or more recommended solutions validated by the simulation for each performance evaluator and optimizing performance of each enterprise operation based on the implementation;"
Applicant asserts that integration of a judicial exception into a practical application is achieved in terms of an improvement to computing technology and/or improving the functionality of the computer (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)) with the capability of simulating the one or more recommended solutions before deployment to arrive at valid solutions and implementing the one or more recommended solutions validated by the simulation for each performance evaluator for optimizing performance of each enterprise operation efficiently based on the implementation. Therefore, the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by applying the evaluation results to the system for implementing the recommended solutions after they are validated by simulation and optimizing performance of enterprise operations. Specifically, the claimed system, dynamically recommends solutions for each performance evaluator and implements the solutions after their validation through simulation, to optimize performance of each enterprise operation. Amended claim limitation of claim 1 states "simulating, via the one or more hardware processors, the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator, to validate the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator, wherein the simulation comprises: choosing one or more relevant recommended solutions for each performance evaluator out of the one or more recommended solutions provided for the associated performance evaluator based on a relevance;
computing an individual simulated maturity score for each performance evaluator, based on (i) a current individual performance metric for the associated performance evaluator, (ii) the plurality of maturity levels defined for the associated performance evaluator, (iii) the one or more relevant recommended solutions provided for the associated performance evaluator, and
(iv) an impact weight value defined for each of the one or more relevant recommended solutions provided for the associated performance evaluator; and calculating an enterprise operation simulated maturity score for each enterprise operation, based on the individual simulated maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or
more performance evaluators, to allow for optimizing performance of each enterprise operation, wherein the enterprise operation simulated maturity score for the selected enterprise operation is calculated by agregating the simulated maturity score of all the performance evaluators;
receiving a target enterprise operation maturity score to achieve for each enterprise operation;
dynamically provide the one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator, based on a current enterprise operation maturity score and the target enterprise operation maturity score;
implementing the one or more recommended solutions validated by the simulation for each performance evaluator and optimizing performance of each enterprise operation based on the implementation;"
As stated in paragraph [0100] of the published specification states, "The calculated enterprise operation simulated maturity score for each enterprise operation allow the user or the assessor to optimize the performance of the corresponding enterprise operation using the one or more relevant recommended solutions selected for each performance evaluator,
through the solution optimization module 214. FIG. 7 shows variation of current enterprise operation maturity score and the simulated enterprise operation maturity score after simulating the recommended solutions, in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 7, the current enterprise operation maturity score is 1.95, whereas the simulated enterprise operation maturity score after simulating the recommended solutions became 2.22. Because the simulated enterprise operation maturity score is more compared to the current enterprise operation maturity score, then the recommended solutions provided are considered as valid solutions for the implementation to increase the overall maturity score of the enterprise operation."
As stated in paragraph [0101] of the published specification, "At step 316 of the method 300, the one or more hardware processors 104 of the system 100 are further configured to receive a target enterprise operation maturity score to achieve for each enterprise operation from the user. The target enterprise operation maturity score is the required maturity score from the current maturity score of the corresponding enterprise operation." Paragraph [0102] of the published specification states "At step 318 of the method 300, the one or more hardware processors 104 of the system 100 are configured to dynamically provide the one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator, based on the current enterprise operation maturity score and the target enterprise operation maturity score, through the solution recommendation module 210. The provided the one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator allow the user for optimizing performance of each enterprise operation."
Applicant asserts that integration of a judicial exception into a practical application is achieved in terms of the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e) with the capability of allowing a user to select an industry type from a list of industry types, the enterprise operation and the enterprise persona as, "selecting, via one or more hardware processors, (i) an industry type from a list of industry types including banking and financial services, consumer packaged goods, energy and resources, healthcare, high-tech and professional services, insurance, life sciences, manufacturing, media and information services, retail, telecom, travel, transportation and hospitality, and utilities, (ii) an enterprise operation of one or more enterprise operations associated with each industry type, and (iii) an enterprise persona of one or more enterprise personas associated with each enterprise operation of the one or more enterprise operations, whose maturity is to be assessed and a performance is to be optimized and the one or more enterprise operations comprises one or more defined business operations and one or more defined information technology (IT) operations, wherein the industry type, the enterprise operation and the enterprise persona is selected by a user;"
The arguments have been carefully considered however they were properly rejected as apply it because the additional elements are merely applied: being used in their ordinary capacity. This finding was not specifically argued against and therefore remains on the record. Further, arguing that something is not monopolized does not address if something is apply it or not.
Applicant asserts that integration of a judicial exception into a practical application is achieved in terms of an improvement to computing technology and/or improving the functionality of the computer (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)) with the capability of simulating the one or more recommended solutions before deployment to arrive at valid solutions and implementing the one or more recommended solutions validated by the simulation for each performance evaluator for optimizing performance of each enterprise operation efficiently based on the implementation. Therefore, the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by applying the evaluation results to the system for implementing the recommended solutions after they are validated by simulation and optimizing performance of enterprise operations. Specifically, the claimed system, dynamically recommends solutions for each performance evaluator and implements the solutions after their validation through simulation, to optimize performance of each enterprise operation. Amended claim limitation of claim 1 states "simulating, via the one or more hardware processors, the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator, to validate the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator, wherein the simulation comprises: choosing one or more relevant recommended solutions for each performance evaluator out of the one or more recommended solutions provided for the associated performance evaluator based on a relevance;
computing an individual simulated maturity score for each performance evaluator, based on (i) a current individual performance metric for the associated performance evaluator, (ii) the plurality of maturity levels defined for the associated performance evaluator, (iii) the one or more relevant recommended solutions provided for the associated performance evaluator, and
(iv) an impact weight value defined for each of the one or more relevant recommended solutions provided for the associated performance evaluator; and calculating an enterprise operation simulated maturity score for each enterprise operation, based on the individual simulated maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators, to allow for optimizing performance of each enterprise operation, wherein the enterprise operation simulated maturity score for the selected enterprise operation is calculated by agregating the simulated maturity score of all the performance evaluators;
receiving a target enterprise operation maturity score to achieve for each enterprise operation;
dynamically provide the one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator, based on a current enterprise operation maturity score and the target enterprise operation maturity score;
implementing the one or more recommended solutions validated by the simulation for each performance evaluator and optimizing performance of each enterprise operation based on the implementation;"
As stated in paragraph [0100] of the published specification states, "The calculated enterprise operation simulated maturity score for each enterprise operation allow the user or the assessor to optimize the performance of the corresponding enterprise operation using the one or more relevant recommended solutions selected for each performance evaluator,
through the solution optimization module 214. FIG. 7 shows variation of current enterprise operation maturity score and the simulated enterprise operation maturity score after simulating the recommended solutions, in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 7, the current enterprise operation maturity score is 1.95, whereas the simulated enterprise operation maturity score after simulating the recommended solutions became 2.22. Because the simulated enterprise operation maturity score is more compared to the current enterprise operation maturity score, then the recommended solutions provided are considered as valid solutions for the implementation to increase the overall maturity score of the enterprise operation."
As stated in paragraph [0101] of the published specification, "At step 316 of the method 300, the one or more hardware processors 104 of the system 100 are further configured to receive a target enterprise operation maturity score to achieve for each enterprise operation from the user. The target enterprise operation maturity score is the required maturity score from the current maturity score of the corresponding enterprise operation." Paragraph [0102] of the published specification states "At step 318 of the method 300, the one or more hardware processors 104 of the system 100 are configured to dynamically provide the one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator, based on the current enterprise operation maturity score and the target enterprise operation maturity score, through the solution recommendation module 210. The provided the one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator allow the user for optimizing performance of each enterprise operation."
Applicant asserts that integration of a judicial exception into a practical application is achieved in terms of the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e) with the capability of allowing a user to select an industry type from a list of industry types, the enterprise operation and the enterprise persona as, "selecting, via one or more hardware processors, (i) an industry type from a list of industry types including banking and financial services, consumer packaged goods, energy and resources, healthcare, high-tech and professional services, insurance, life sciences, manufacturing, media and information services, retail, telecom, travel, transportation and hospitality, and utilities, (ii) an enterprise operation of one or more enterprise operations associated with each industry type, and (iii) an enterprise persona of one or more enterprise personas associated with each enterprise operation of the one or more enterprise operations, whose maturity is to be assessed and a performance is to be optimized and the one or more enterprise operations comprises one or more defined business operations and one or more defined information technology (IT) operations, wherein the industry type, the enterprise operation and the enterprise persona is selected by a user;"
Further, Applicant asserts that integration of a judicial exception into a practical application is achieved in terms of an improvement to computing technology and/or improving the functionality of the computer (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)) with the capability of calculating enterprise maturity score for selected enterprise operation by aggregating individual metric maturity score of all key performance evaluators. Amended independent claim 1 states "calculating, via the one or more hardware processors, an enterprise operation maturity score for each enterprise operation selected, based on the individual maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators, wherein the one or more performance evaluators are key performance indicators for the enterprise operation, wherein the enterprise operation maturity score for selected enterprise operation is calculated by aggregating the individual maturity score of all performance evaluators;"
Paragraph [0041] of the published application states "The methods and systems of the present disclosure compute or assess a maturity score of the enterprise operation on a predefined maturity scale. The maturity score of the enterprise operation is determined based on responses to a set of evaluators which are provided as inputs. These evaluators are described as the key performance indicators for a given enterprise operation."
Paragraph [0077] of the published application states "At step 310 of the method 300, the one or more hardware processors 104 of the system 100 are configured to calculate an enterprise operation maturity score for each enterprise operation selected at step 302 of the method 300, based on the individual maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators computed at step 308 of the method 300. In an embodiment, the enterprise operation maturity score (PM(Y)), for the selected enterprise operation (Y) is computed by aggregating the individual metric maturity score of all performance evaluators,..."
Applicant asserts that integration of a judicial exception into a practical application is achieved in terms of an improvement to computing technology and/or improving the functionality of the computer (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)) with the capability of computing maturity score using actual performance values drawn from predefined ranges and at four maturity levels as stated in the claim limitation, "computing, via the one or more hardware processors, an individual maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators, based on (i) the individual performance value for an associated performance evaluator, (ii) a plurality of maturity levels defined for the associated performance evaluator, and (iii) one or more maturity ratings defined for the associated performance evaluator, wherein the plurality of maturity levels pertains to initial (Li) resilient (L2). adaptive
(L). and cognitive (L4), and wherein the initial (L) is a lowest maturity level and the cognitive
(L4) is a highest maturity level;" Applicant asserts that integration of a judicial exception into a practical application is achieved in terms of an improvement to computing technology and/or improving the functionality of the computer (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)) with the capability of transitioning of the one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator as either an incremental improvement as the resilient(L2), or a best-in-class level improvement as the cognitive (L4) in the individual maturity score of each enterprise operation selected, when a current maturity level of the enterprise operation through each performance evaluator stands at the initial (L1). Further, using knowledge engine which is a technical data structure with cognitive intelligence for dynamic decision making to store recommended solutions and regularly updating the knowledge engine for future use, where knowledge engine includes the questionnaires that are defined to measure the performance and knowledge engine also contains the recommended solution sets for each performance evaluator. Therefore, the
claim limitation mentions the technical advancement stating, "dynamically providing, via the one or more hardware processors, one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator, based on the individual maturity score for the associated performance evaluator, to improve the maturity score for each enterprise operation selected, wherein the one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator defined for either an incremental improvement or a best-in-class level improvement in the individual maturity score of each enterprise operation selected, wherein when the current maturity level of the enterprise operation through each performance evaluators stands at initial (Li), then the one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator are defined for either the incremental improvement as the resilient (L2), or the best-in-class level improvement as the cognitive (L4) in the individual maturity score of each enterprise operation selected, wherein the one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator, the enterprise operation maturity score of each enterprise operation and the individual maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators are stored in a knowledge engine for further usedo[ pYroviding a list of recommended solutions to achieve improvement in individual metric performance, wherein the knowledge engine includes cognitive intelligence for performing a plurality of features and dynamic decision making, wherein the knowledge engine includes a plurality of questionnaires that are defined to measure the performance of the enterprise operations and each persona type, wherein the questionnaire selected is related to the enterprise operation, wherein the knowledge engine contains the recommended solution sets for each performance evaluator corresponding to maturity resilient, adaptive and cognitive;"
Paragraph [0062] of the published application states "In an embodiment, the knowledge engine 216 includes a plurality of questionnaires (KPI1, KPI2, KPI3, . . . , KPIn), that are defined to measure the performance of the enterprise operations for each industry type and each persona type."
Paragraph [0083] of the published application states "Consider the maturity levels initial
(L1), resilient (L2), adaptive (L3), and cognitive (L4) for each performance evaluator, and the knowledge engine 216 contains the recommended solution sets for each for each
performance evaluator corresponding to maturity resilient (L2), adaptive (L3), and cognitive (L4) say S2, S3, S4 respectively."
Applicant asserts that an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception with the capability of determining the potential benefits after optimizing the recommended solutions for each performance evaluator. The amended independent claim 1 states, "determining one or more potential benefits for each of the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator, using a benefit computation algorithm, wherein the one or more potential benefits are potential outcomes after optimizing the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator."
Paragraph [0103] of the published application states "At step 320 of the method 300, the one or more hardware processors 104 of the system 100 are configured to determine one or more potential benefits for each of the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator, using a benefit computation algorithm. The potential benefits calculation module 218 includes the benefit computation algorithm and is configured to determine one or more potential benefits for each of the one or more recommended solutions."
This is not persuasive as the only thing that is made more efficient is the value of the maturity score or other metrics, all of which are under the abstract idea. This is similar to “A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Just like in that case, Applicant’s only claim to improvement is that “a process is made faster.” However, that is due to the computer, and does not improve the computer. Therefore this is unpersuasive.
Applicant then “asserts technical advancement” but this assertion is not one that one ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize. See Id.
One ordinarily skilled would not recognize a technical improvement in the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(a):
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Each of the paragraphs cited as well as the specification as a whole but there is no improvement to technology claimed or otherwise described.
Referring to Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit concludes that "the disclosed invention improves the efficiency of using the electronic device by bringing together "a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data," which can be accessed directly from the main menu. Displaying selected data or functions of interest in the summary window allows the user to see the most relevant data or functions "without actually opening the application up ". The speed of a user's navigation through various views and windows can be improved because it "saves the user from navigating to the required application, opening it up, and then navigating within that application to enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated. Rather than paging through multiple screens of options, "only three steps may be needed from start up to reaching the required data/functionality. This language clearly indicates that the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly those with small screens.
Along similar lines as the Federal Circuit decision (summary window), the claimed subject matter provides an enhanced interface technology for personalization of information display by calculating an enterprise operation simulated maturity score for each enterprise operation, based on the individual simulated maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators, to allow for optimizing performance of each enterprise operation and displaying, the one or more recommended solutions in an enterprise operation maturity assessment report through graphical user interface, wherein the enterprise operation maturity assessment report includes the enterprise operation maturity score of each enterprise operation and laggards and best-in-class benchmarks for the individual maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators. Further, determining, one or more potential benefits for each of the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator, using a benefit computation algorithm. Therefore, the ordered combination of claimed elements integrates the exception into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea) under Step 2A-Prong 2 of the revised guidance for assessing Patent Subject Mater Eligibility.
Applicant requests the Examiner consider the above-mentioned arguments and
submissions on the merits. Further, based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Mater Eligibility Guidance, it is to be noted that Step 2A-Prong 2 does not evaluate whether the additional elements are conventional to determine whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
Applicant then argues Core Wireless but there is not technical limitation to a small screen or otherwise, no specific GUI limitations, or analogs to this. None of the comparisons made by Applicant are persuasive as they are trying to compare the abstract idea of these claims (see elements identified as abstract idea, this is maintained by Examiner) to what the court found as not an abstract idea in Core Wireless. The only thing in common is both have “displaying” (regarding Applicant’s argument) and that is insufficient because generic computers display data. Also see Electric Power Group which is similar to Applicant’s claims: collecting data, analyzing data, and displaying the results. The application has been considered on the merits.
Step 2B: Claims recite additional element (s) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (s)
In addition to the claim limitations satisfying Step 2A Prong 2 test criteria, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed elements/limitations recite patent-eligible subject matter.
More specifically, the following features of amended claim 1 provide a method for optimizing performance of enterprise operations using maturity assessment,
"...the enterprise operation maturity score of each enterprise operation and the individual maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators stored in a knowledge engine for further use of providing a list of recommended solutions to achieve improvement in individual metric performance, wherein knowledge engine uses cognitive intelligence for performing a plurality of features and dynamic decision making, wherein the knowledge engine includes a plurality of questionnaires that are defined to measure the performance of the enterprise operations and each persona type, wherein the questionnaire selected is related to the enterprise operation, wherein the knowledge engine contains the recommended solution sets for each performance evaluator corresponding to maturity resilient, adaptive and cognitive;" "simulating, via the one or more hardware processors, the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator, to validate the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator, wherein the simulation comprises: choosing one or more relevant recommended solutions for each performance evaluator out of the one or more recommended solutions provided for the associated performance evaluator based on a relevance;
computing an individual simulated maturity score for each performance evaluator, based on (i) a current individual performance metric for the associated performance evaluator, (ii) the plurality of maturity levels defined for the associated performance evaluator, (iii) the one or more relevant recommended solutions provided for the associated performance evaluator, and (iv) an impact weight value defined for each of the one or more relevant recommended solutions provided for the associated performance evaluator; and
calculating an enterprise operation simulated maturity score for each enterprise operation, based on the individual simulated maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators, to allow for optimizing performance of each enterprise operation; displaying, the one or more recommended solutions in an enterprise operation maturity assessment report through graphical user interface, wherein the enterprise operation maturity assessment report includes the enterprise operation maturity score of each enterprise operation and laggards and the best-in-class benchmarks for the individual maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators." "calculating an enterprise operation simulated maturity score for each enterprise operation, based on the individual simulated maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators, to allow for optimizing performance of each enterprise operation wherein the enterprise operation simulated maturity score for the selected enterprise operation is calculated by aggregating the simulated maturity score of all the performance evaluators;
receiving a target enterprise operation maturity score to achieve for each enterprise operation;
dynamically provide the one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator, based on a current enterprise operation maturity score and the target enterprise operation maturity score; implementing the one or more recommended solutions validated by the simulation for each performance evaluator and optimizing performance of each enterprise operation based on the implementation;"
"displaying, the one or more recommended solutions in an enterprise operation maturity assessment report through graphical user interface, wherein the enterprise operation maturity assessment report includes the enterprise operation maturity score of each enterprise operation and laggards and best-in-class benchmarks for the individual maturity score for each performance evaluator of the one or more performance evaluators; "determining one or more potential benefits for each of the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator, using a benefit computation algorithm, wherein the one or more potential benefits are potential outcomes after optimizing the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator."
Paragraph [0062] of the published application states "In an embodiment, the knowledge engine 216 includes a plurality of questionnaires (KPI1, KPI2, KPI3, ....KPIn), that are defined to measure the performance of the enterprise operations for each industry type and each persona type."
Paragraph [0083] of the published application states "Consider the maturity levels initial
(L1), resilient (L2), adaptive (L3), and cognitive (L4) for each performance evaluator, and the knowledge engine 216 contains the recommended solution sets for each for each
performance evaluator corresponding to maturity resilient (L2), adaptive (L3), and cognitive (L4) say S2, S3, S4 respectively."
As stated in paragraph [0100] of the published specification states "The calculated enterprise operation simulated maturity score for each enterprise operation allow the user or the assessor to optimize the performance of the corresponding enterprise operation using the one or more relevant recommended solutions selected for each performance evaluator, through the solution optimization module 214. FIG. 7 shows variation of current enterprise operation maturity score and the simulated enterprise operation maturity score after simulating the recommended solutions, in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 7, the current enterprise operation maturity score is 1.95, whereas the simulated enterprise operation maturity score after simulating the recommended solutions became 2.22. Because the simulated enterprise operation maturity score is more compared to the current enterprise operation maturity score, then the recommended solutions provided are considered as valid solutions for the implementation to increase the overall maturity score of the enterprise operation."
As stated in paragraph [0101] of the published specification, "At step 316 of the method 300, the one or more hardware processors 104 of the system 100 are further configured to receive a target enterprise operation maturity score to achieve for each enterprise operation from the user. The target enterprise operation maturity score is the required maturity score from the current maturity score of the corresponding enterprise operation."
Paragraph [0102] of the as published specification states "At step 318 of the method 300, the one or more hardware processors 104 of the system 100 are configured to dynamically provide the one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator, based on the current enterprise operation maturity score and the target enterprise operation maturity score, through the solution recommendation module 210. The provided the one or more recommended solutions for each performance evaluator allow the user for optimizing performance of each enterprise operation."
Paragraph [0103] of the as published application states "At step 320 of the method 300, the one or more hardware processors 104 of the system 100 are configured to determine one or more potential benefits for each of the one or more recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator, using a benefit computation algorithm. The potential benefits calculation module 218 includes the benefit computation algorithm and is configured to determine one or more potential benefits for each of the one or more recommended solutions."
Applicant submits that the claimed invention provides significantly more in terms of simulating the one or more recommended solutions before deployment to arrive at valid solutions and implementing the one or more recommended solutions validated by the simulation for each performance evaluator for optimizing performance of each enterprise operation efficiently based on the implementation. Applicant submits that the claimed invention provides a technical effect in terms of enabling the dynamic selection of solutions aligned to various design dimensions and simulate what if scenarios. Applicant submits that the claimed invention has a technical advancement in terms of displaying enterprise operation maturity assessment report through graphical user interface and determining the benefits of the recommended solutions provided for each performance evaluator.
Hence, the presently amended claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In view of the foregoing, Applicant asserts that the claimed subject matter provides a technical advancement for optimizing performance of enterprise operations using maturity assessment.
Therefore, taking all the claim elements individually, or in combination, the claim as a whole amounts to "significantly more" than an abstract idea of itself (Step 2B: Yes).
Applicant requests the Examiner consider the above-mentioned arguments and submissions on the merits. By means of the aforementioned claim amendments and submissions, Applicant humbly and respectfully submits that the subject matter claimed does not merely constitute an abstract idea and constitutes significantly more than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C § 101.
The 2B arguments are unpersuasive as they attempt to reframe the abstract idea as significantly more, which is only for the combination of additional elements. Steps for simulating performance evaluation as claimed by applicant in the language claimed by applicant as shown above in the 101 rejection are the abstract idea. A careful review finds that Applicant has not identified a combination of additional elements that is significantly more than the abstract idea, considering the claims as a whole. Arguing for example a technical effect that enables a dynamic selection of solutions and simulate what if scenarios is also the scope of the abstract idea which could be done mentally or pen and paper by setting up evaluations such as surveys allowing people to select them which, in selecting certain responses, opens for further responses to be given (“if dissatisfied, please write why you are dissatisfied”). Therefore, though Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered they are unpersuasive.
Prior Art Considered Relevant
The following prior art is considered relevant to Applicant’s claims:
Manjarekar, US PGPUB 20140142990 A1, teaches in par 023 a dashboard to view different kinds of business data and in Table 1 insurance related KPI.
Marks et al., US PGPUB 20160110664 A1, teaches in Table 1 evaluations of people in terms of compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley.
Mayerle, US PGPUB 20130346161 A1, teaches root cause analysis for benchmarking for particular KPIs in par 051, including for manufacturing or accounting or sales, see par 028.
Varajao et al., Models and methods for information systems project success evaluation- A review and directions for research, Heliyon, 2022, available at:< https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844022032650 >
Teaches evaluation and performance steps for information systems see page 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights