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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment received 02/26/2026.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 1 and 17-18 are amended. Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
The 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17-18 is withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment, however a new ground of rejection is applied to these claims under §103 in the instant office action.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 Arguments: Applicant’s arguments (Remarks at pg. 6) concerning the §101 rejection of claims 1-18 have been fully considered, but are primarily raised in support of the new limitations added to amended independent claims 1/17/18, which have been fully considered and believed to be fully addressed in the updated §101 rejection set forth below.
Response to §102 arguments: Applicant’s arguments (Remarks at pg. 7) concerning the §102 rejection of independent claims 1/17/18 have been considered, however the arguments are primarily raised in support of new limitations added to independent claims 1/17/18. The §102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1/17/18 is withdrawn in response to the amendment, however a new ground of rejection is applied to these claims under §103 below.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the subject matter eligibility guidance set forth in MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.03), it is first noted that the claimed device (claims 1-16), method (claim 17), and non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 18) are each directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine, process, and article of manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-18 satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04), it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping by reciting limitations that set forth activities for calculating and evaluating asset values in relation to business processes and a business strategy as well as transport/logistics scheduling, which are fundamental economic practices as well commercial/legal interaction activity, and the claims also recite steps that, but for the generic computer implementation (processing circuitry), may be implemented as “Mental Processes” (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion), and furthermore the “calculate” steps may be implemented as mathematical calculations since it is axiomatic that “calculate” is an activity that is, or can be, performed mathematically, such that the claims also recite activity falling under the “Mathematical Concepts” abstract idea grouping. The limitations reciting the abstract idea, as set forth in independent claim 1 are identified in bold text below, whereas the additional elements are presented in plain text and are separately evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B:
processing circuitry (This is an additional element evaluated below under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B)
to calculate an asset value with respect to an asset being an evaluation target based on an evaluation axis in a target business process, the evaluation axis being for evaluating the asset value, while using each of a plurality of business processes as a target, the asset being a railway (The step of “calculate an asset value…” in relation to business processes and business strategy is considered a fundamental economic practice as well as commercial/legal interaction activity, and but for the generic computer implementation, this activity could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion to perform the calculation, and furthermore this step may be implemented as a mathematical calculation),
to calculate an asset contribution degree indicating a degree that the asset being the evaluation target contributes to an organization objective by synthesizing the asset value calculated with respect to one or more business processes to realize a business strategy which is set to achieve the organization objective (The step of “calculate an asset contribution…” in relation to business processes and business strategy is considered a fundamental economic practice as well as commercial/legal interaction activity, and but for the generic computer implementation, this activity could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion to perform the calculation, and furthermore this step may be implemented as a mathematical calculation);
to schedule use of the railway based on the asset contribution degree (The step of “schedule use of the railway…” is considered a fundamental economic practice as commercial/legal interaction activity, and but for the generic computer implementation, this activity could be implemented as mental activity such as by human evaluation, judgment, or opinion to perform the scheduling, such as by writing down a railway schedule with the aid of pen and paper, e.g., Track 1 section A scheduled for train traffic from trains X and Y at specified time intervals).
Independent claims 17-18 recite similar limitations as those set forth in claim 1 as discussed above, and have therefore been determined to recite the same abstract idea as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 17, and 18 include additional elements of processing circuitry, a computer, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent claims 1, 17, and 18 include additional elements of processing circuitry, a computer, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions/software to perform the abstract idea (See Spec. at par. [0010], noting for example that “The asset management device 10 is a computer”), which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment), similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-16 recite the same abstract idea(s) as recited in the independent claims, and have been determined to recite further details/steps falling under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” abstract idea groupings discussed above. For example, dependent claim 2 describes setting a ratio and performing a further calculation in relation to one or more business processes and a valuation, which is considered a fundamental economic practice as well as commercial/legal interaction activity, and but for the generic computer implementation, this activity could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion to perform the calculation, and furthermore this step may be implemented as a mathematical calculation since a setting a ratio and performing the calculation may be accomplished in their entirety via mathematical operations. The other dependent claims have been fully considered as well, but are subject to substantially similar rationale as claim 2. The processing circuitry relied on to perform the limitations in claims 2-16 has been considered, however similar to the role of the processing circuity in independent claim 1, this additional element amounts to using a generic computer to perform the judicial exception, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), though without improving on the processing circuitry or any other technology, which is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). See also, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Regarding the display activity recited in claims 5-8, and such activity is considered insignificant extra-solution output activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution activity has also been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Zarb (US 2004/0039619) in view of Zyngier et al. (US 2018/0047124, hereinafter “Zyngier”).
Claims 1/17/18: As per claim 1, Zarb teaches an asset management device (pars. 1, 5, 178, 205, and Fig. 36: apparatus for analyzing an organization; analysis device; maintenance and management of assets needed for such strategy or strategies) comprising:
processing circuitry (par. 212, 218, and Fig. 36: Each of the methods described above can be performed on a single computer, computer system, microprocessor; Execution of sequences of the instructions in the control program causes the processor 700 to perform the process steps described herein. In alternative embodiments, hard-wired circuitry may be used in place of, or in combination with, software instructions for implementation of some or all of the methods of the present invention)
to calculate an asset value with respect to an asset being an evaluation target based on an evaluation axis in a target business process, the evaluation axis being for evaluating the asset value, while using each of a plurality of business processes as a target … (Abstract, pars. 5-11, 38-39, 41, 47, 67-68, and 174: e.g., analyzing an organization may include allowing a user to select a benchmarking mode [i.e., evaluation axis] to analyze a organization; Process, digital asset, physical asset, and collaborative asset benchmarks can be summed or aggregated across all strategies [i.e., asset being an evaluation target], for a particular strategy or for a particular role. Additionally such aggregation would be performed for conservative, probable and assertive values; process may be mapped directly to a strategy. Assets, which may be or include digital assets, physical assets, and/or collaborative assets, are then determined and associated with the different processes [i.e., target business process]. From this a benefit of ownership provided by or associated with the assets, processes, roles, and strategies may be determined; strategy may have multiple processes [target business processes] and assets associated with it. A benchmarking mode may be used to analyze each process and asset in a consistent manner using formulas and attributes associated with the benchmarking mode; Processing begins at a step 102 during which a user is allowed to select or otherwise establish a benchmarking mode [i.e., evaluation axis] to analyze a strategy. In some embodiments, there may be multiple benchmarking modes that may be allowable or selectable, each of which may use different sets or templates attributes and formulas; In addition, a strategy may be obtained from a user (e.g., the user is allowed to enter, identify, or select one or more strategies) [which is also an evaluation axis]),
to calculate an asset contribution degree indicating a degree that the asset being the evaluation target contributes to an organization objective by synthesizing the asset value calculated with respect to one or more business processes to realize a business strategy which is set to achieve the organization objective (pars. 113, 124, 127, 138, 166, 173, and 175: e.g., measure of the annual recurrence and extent for which the digital asset "ESS" makes a contribution to a process "INVOICE COLLECTION" and the strategy "IMPROVE DAYS SALES OUTSTANDING" [i.e., asset contribution degree] over the lifecycle; generate actual conservative, probable, and assertive delta contributions as well as percentage conservative, probable, and assertive delta contributions [i.e., synthesizing the asset value], all of which reflect or are a measure of the improvements or changes resulting from contribution of the physical asset "COLLATOR" versus the entered baseline values, as previously discussed above; For the example table 442 for the collaborative asset "SALES ORDER ACCEPTANCE" described in the tables 399 and 400, zero percent of the benefit of this modeling of a collaborative asset will be obtained during the first fiscal year, fifty percent of the benefit of the collaborative asset contribution will be obtained during the second fiscal year; probable and assertive target contributions can be aggregated across all benchmarks for a given role by year for example the probable contribution for the a process benchmark and related digital asset(s), physical asset(s) and collaborative asset(s) can be totaled [i.e., synthesizing the asset value]; all strategy benefits can be aggregated by year (e.g., FY00-FY09) and referenced as an organizational benefit model [i.e., business strategy set to achieve the organization objective]; For the strategy "IMPROVE DAYS SALES OUTSTANDING" and the role "FINANCE", the conservative target contribution for the process "INVOICE COLLECTION" is $178,500.00 (see FIG. 13), the conservative target contribution for the digital asset "ESS" is $2,720.00 (see FIG. 17), the conservative target contribution for the physical asset "COLLATOR" is $1,001.00 (see FIG. 21)).
Zarb does not teach:
the asset being a railway; and
to schedule use of the railway based on the asset contribution degree.
Zyngier teaches:
the asset being a railway (pars. 10, 22, and Fig. 1: optimize a rail system, including creating train schedules with no conflicts in limited flexibility rail system; rail system for optimization may be the scheduling of trains in the rail system, the optimization comprising finding the train schedule which maximizes the train flows into and out of the rail system); and
to schedule use of the railway based on the asset contribution degree (pars. 20-24 and 105-107: e.g., optimization comprising finding the train schedule which maximizes the train flows into and out of the rail system; objective functions for optimizing an aspect of the rail system: determining a feasible train schedule for the rail system for a particular time horizon (e.g. seven days); determining a train schedule which minimizes the usage of passing loops by all trains; determining a train schedule which maximizes the utilization of all sections in the rail system; determining a train schedule which minimizes the amount of time it takes for trains of a particular type to travel to its destination; Decision variables have coefficients which indicate how much a decision variable contributes to the value of the objective function. What decision variables are included in the objective function depends on the objective, namely, the value to be optimized; objective function may comprise decision variables representing the number of pool units used by the trains. The coefficients for those decision variables may reflect a real-world penalty value (e.g. monetary cost)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zarb with Zyngier because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for optimizing the allocation/scheduling of resources in accordance with an objective, business strategy, goal, target, or the like, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of calculating an asset contribution degree to an organization, and because modifying Zarb with Zyngier’s railway based asset scheduling context, as claimed, would provide the expected benefit of optimizing the allocation of resources, such as in pursuit of improved supply chain management (Zarb at par. 2) since rail based transport of goods is appreciated as an important consideration given its relevance to time, cost, and efficiency in an organization’s supply chain and logistics planning; and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 17 and 18 are directed to an asset management method and non-transitory computer readable medium for performing substantially similar limitations as those recited in claim 1 and addressed above. Zarb, in view of Zyngier, teaches an asset management method and non-transitory computer readable medium for performing the limitations discussed above (Zarb at pars. 8, 10, 44, 212, and 216-218: e.g., methods of the present invention may be embodied as a computer program; a method for facilitating analysis of an organization; method 50 may be implemented in software operating on a user device; computer program product in a computer readable medium; See also, Zyngier at pars. 52 and 131: a computer; and a memory storing a program; method and system; optimization software), and claims 17/18 are therefore rejected using the same reference and for substantially the same reasons as set forth above.
Claim 5: Zarb further teaches wherein the processing circuitry displays the asset value with respect to the asset being the evaluation target, and the asset contribution degree with respect to the asset being the evaluation target to the organization objective calculated (pars. 108-113, 125-127, 131-135, 138, 140, 151-152, and Figs. 16-17, 24-25, and 28-29: e.g., As illustrated in the interface or table 200 in FIG. 16, conservative, probable, and assertive actual target estimates have been entered for various attributes of the digital asset "ESS". The actual target estimates reflect or are a measure of precise or actual changes to baseline values for the digital asset "ESS"; The benefit information provided in table 238 is a reflection or measure of the annual recurrence and extent for which the digital asset "ESS" makes a contribution to a process "INVOICE COLLECTION" and the strategy "IMPROVE DAYS SALES OUTSTANDING" over the lifecycle; target contributions or "net results" are displayed based on whether the benchmark is targeting a cost savings or revenue increase; result is reported as the ultimate annual target contribution. For example, $711,750,000 (see entry 328)-$533,812,500=$177,937,500 (see entry 334) or the probable target contribution for this physical asset model).
Claim 9: Zarb further teaches wherein the processing circuitry accepts setting of the evaluation axis (pars. 8, 47, 67, and Fig. 7: allowing a user to select a benchmarking mode [evaluation axis] to analyze an organization; user is allowed to select or otherwise establish a benchmarking mode [i.e., evaluation axis] to analyze a strategy. In some embodiments; In addition, a strategy may be obtained from a user (e.g., the user is allowed to enter, identify, or select one or more strategies); In addition, a strategy may be obtained from a user (e.g., the user is allowed to enter, identify, or select one or more strategies) [also an evaluation axis]).
Claim 13: Zarb further teaches wherein the processing circuitry accepts setting of the evaluation axis (pars. 8, 47, 67, and Fig. 7: allowing a user to select a benchmarking mode [evaluation axis] to analyze an organization; user is allowed to select or otherwise establish a benchmarking mode [i.e., evaluation axis] to analyze a strategy; a strategy may be obtained from a user (e.g., the user is allowed to enter, identify, or select one or more strategies); In addition, a strategy may be obtained from a user (e.g., the user is allowed to enter, identify, or select one or more strategies) [also an evaluation axis]).
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Zarb (US 2004/0039619) in view of Zyngier et al. (US 2018/0047124, hereinafter “Zyngier”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shen et al. (US 2022/0113710, hereinafter “Shen”).
Claim 2: Zarb further teaches the processing circuitry synthesizes the asset value and calculates the asset contribution degree by calculating a value obtained by multiplying the asset value … with respect to each of the one or more business processes, and by totaling the value calculated (pars. 113, 118, 125, 138, 151, 163, and 174: e.g., The benefit information provided in table 238 is a reflection or measure of the annual recurrence and extent for which the digital asset "ESS" makes a contribution to a process "INVOICE COLLECTION" and the strategy "IMPROVE DAYS SALES OUTSTANDING" over the lifecycle; baseline value $10,267.86 (see entry 274) is computed by multiplying UNITS OF THIS PHYSICAL ASSET (see entry 270) times PERCENTAGE OF PHYSICAL ASSET DEDICATED TO PROCESS; conservative, probable and assertive target contribution values 326, 328 and 330 can be calculated using the projected states and identical logic or formulas and the appropriate attribute values. Also, as illustrated by the entries 332, 334, 336, target contributions or "net results" are displayed based on whether the benchmark is targeting a cost savings or revenue increase; target contributions are established using the same formulaic process as in the case of the baseline function. For example, the baseline value TOTAL ANNUAL COLLABORATIVE ASSET COST AVOIDANCE FOR PROCESS or $1,500,000.00 was derived by multiplying the values for entries 364 and 153 (e.g., 20.00.times.$75,000.00. Each of the conservative, probable and assertive target values can be computed using the same logic but the projected target values rather than the baseline values. Also, as illustrated by the entries 378, 380, 382; aggregation of benefits is depicted in its simplest form, since the aggregate benefits for the strategy "IMPROVE DAYS SALES OUTSTANDING" (see FIG. 10) and the role "FINANCE" (see FIG. 10) would have the same aggregate values for all six benchmarks types: process benchmark (see FIGS. 11-14); digital asset benchmark (see FIGS. 15-18); physical asset benchmarks (property plant and equipment) (see FIGS. 19-22); physical asset benchmarks (products for sale and inventory) (see FIGS. 23-26); collaborative asset benchmarks (cost avoidance) (see FIGS. 27-30); and collaborative asset benchmark), but does not teach wherein a ratio is set for each of the one or more business processes; and multiplying … by the ratio.
Shen teaches wherein a ratio is set for each of the one or more business processes; and multiplying … by the ratio (par. 176: multiplying the proportion coefficient of each process station).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zarb/Zyngier with Shen because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for optimizing resources/assets with respect to a business strategy, goal, target, or the like, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of calculating an asset contribution degree to an organization, and because modifying Zarb/Zyngier with Shen’s proportion based ratio tied to business processes, as claimed, would provide the expected benefit of evaluating organizational strategies based on contribution of assets or processes to the strategy (Zarb at par. 6); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 3: Zarb further teaches:
wherein one or more business strategies are set to achieve the organization objective (pars. 49 and 81: analysis can provide an analysis of financial or other metrics which compare and contrast multiple companies across a series of objectives to determine which company is performing the best, which company is performing the weakest, and what the relative value of improving operations across one or all of the metrics may yield. Such benchmarking provides a framework for determining realistic strategies and goals that are achievable based on competitive analysis and realities; In some embodiments, a business process may be any broad collection of activities within a company that is involved in the ultimate goal of developing or providing a product or service to a customer in support of an associated strategy),
an achievement goal to achieve the organization objective is set for each of the one or more business strategies (pars. 49, 72, 109-111, 127, 149, and 184-186: conservative, probable, and assertive target estimates entered via in the table 200 may be used to generate actual conservative, probable, and assertive delta contributions as well as percentage conservative, probable, and assertive delta contributions; For example, an organization may want to improve its sales of products internationally, increase production, reduce the days in inventory of its goods, improve its days sales outstanding (i.e., operational efficiency of core business processes), improve the return on its marketing expenditures, improves its sales per employee, profit margin, etc. A strategy can be formulated; return on investment (ROI) for a strategy may be determined by establishing the profit or loss resulting from an investment transaction, usually expressed as an annual percentage return; The table 296 permits phasing in and out of benefits (contributions) commensurate with business objectives),
the processing circuitry calculates a business value being a value of a target business strategy, from a … desired value indicated in the achievement goal set for the target business strategy relative to a desired value indicated in the organization objective, and a proportion of a realized value achieved with the target business strategy relative to the desired value indicated in the achievement goal set for the target business strategy, while using each of the one or more business strategies as a target (pars. 96, 138, 166, 175, and 181-186: return on investment (ROI) [i.e., a business value] for a strategy may be determined by establishing the profit or loss; measure of the annual recurrence and extent for which the collaborative asset "SALES ORDER ACCEPTANCE" makes a contribution to the strategy "IMPROVE DAYS SALES OUTSTANDING" and the process "INVOICE COLLECTION” over the lifecycle (years) it is modeled. A user may be prompted or queried to provide the information in the table 442. Conservative, probable and assertive target contribution values may be phased in by year as a percentage; Actual or percentage conservative, probable and assertive targets would have a positive value designating the introduction of the asset at some future state of the model, and thus produce negative conservative, probable and assertive target contributions),
and the processing circuitry calculates the asset contribution degree from the business value with respect to the target business strategy calculated, and a value obtained by synthesizing the asset value calculated with respect to one or more business processes to realize the target business strategy (pars. 113, 124, 127, 138, 166, 173, and 175: e.g., digital asset "ESS" makes a contribution to a process "INVOICE COLLECTION" and the strategy "IMPROVE DAYS SALES OUTSTANDING" [i.e., asset contribution degree] over the lifecycle; generate actual conservative, probable, and assertive delta contributions as well as percentage conservative, probable, and assertive delta contributions [i.e., synthesizing the asset value], all of which reflect or are a measure of the improvements or changes resulting from contribution of the physical asset "COLLATOR" versus the entered baseline values, as previously discussed above; For the example table 442 for the collaborative asset "SALES ORDER ACCEPTANCE" described in the tables 399 and 400; probable and assertive target contributions can be aggregated across all benchmarks for a given role by year for example the probable contribution for the a process benchmark and related digital asset(s), physical asset(s) and collaborative asset(s) can be totaled; all strategy benefits can be aggregated by year (e.g., FY00-FY09) and referenced as an organizational benefit model; For the strategy "IMPROVE DAYS SALES OUTSTANDING" and the role "FINANCE", the conservative target contribution for the process "INVOICE COLLECTION" is $178,500.00 (see FIG. 13), the conservative target contribution for the digital asset "ESS" is $2,720.00 (see FIG. 17), the conservative target contribution for the physical asset "COLLATOR" is $1,001.00 (see FIG. 21)).
Zarb and Zyngier do not explicitly teach a coefficient obtained from a proportion.
Shen teaches a coefficient obtained from a proportion (pars. 21-22, 27-31, 48-49, and 56: e.g., determining a proportion coefficient of each process; determining an average value of proportion components corresponding to the preferred quantity records of each process station as the proportion coefficient).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zarb/Zyngier with Shen because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for optimizing resources/assets with respect to a business strategy, goal, target, or the like, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of calculating an asset contribution degree to an organization, and because modifying Zarb/Zyngier with Shen’s coefficient obtained from a proportion, as claimed, would provide the expected benefit of evaluating organizational strategies based on proportional contribution toward a strategy (Zarb at par. 6); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 4: Zarb further teaches:
wherein one or more business strategies are set to achieve the organization objective (pars. 49 and 81: analysis can provide an analysis of financial or other metrics which compare and contrast multiple companies across a series of objectives to determine which company is performing the best, which company is performing the weakest, and what the relative value of improving operations across one or all of the metrics may yield. Such benchmarking provides a framework for determining realistic strategies and goals that are achievable based on competitive analysis and realities; In some embodiments, a business process may be any broad collection of activities within a company that is involved in the ultimate goal of developing or providing a product or service to a customer in support of an associated strategy),
an achievement goal to achieve the organization objective is set for each of the one or more business strategies (pars. 49, 72, 109-111, 127, 149, and 184-186: conservative, probable, and assertive target estimates entered via in the table 200 may be used to generate actual conservative, probable, and assertive delta contributions as well as percentage conservative, probable, and assertive delta contributions; For example, an organization may want to improve its sales of products internationally, increase production, reduce the days in inventory of its goods, improve its days sales outstanding (i.e., operational efficiency of core business processes), improve the return on its marketing expenditures, improves its sales per employee, profit margin, etc. A strategy can be formulated; return on investment (ROI) for a strategy may be determined by establishing the profit or loss resulting from an investment transaction, usually expressed as an annual percentage return; The table 296 permits phasing in and out of benefits (contributions) commensurate with business objectives),
the processing circuitry calculates a business value being a value of a target business strategy, from a … desired value indicated in the achievement goal set for the target business strategy relative to a desired value indicated in the organization objective, and a proportion of a realized value achieved with the target business strategy relative to the desired value indicated in the achievement goal set for the target business strategy, while using each of the one or more business strategies as a target (pars. 96, 138, 166, 175, and 181-186: return on investment (ROI) [i.e., a business value] for a strategy may be determined by establishing the profit or loss; measure of the annual recurrence and extent for which the collaborative asset "SALES ORDER ACCEPTANCE" makes a contribution to the strategy "IMPROVE DAYS SALES OUTSTANDING" and the process "INVOICE COLLECTION” over the lifecycle (years) it is modeled. A user may be prompted or queried to provide the information in the table 442. Conservative, probable and assertive target contribution values may be phased in by year as a percentage; Actual or percentage conservative, probable and assertive targets would have a positive value designating the introduction of the asset at some future state of the model, and thus produce negative conservative, probable and assertive target contributions),
and the processing circuitry calculates the asset contribution degree from the business value with respect to the target business strategy calculated, and a value obtained by synthesizing the asset value calculated with respect to one or more business processes to realize the target business strategy (pars. 113, 124, 127, 138, 166, 173, and 175: e.g., digital asset "ESS" makes a contribution to a process "INVOICE COLLECTION" and the strategy "IMPROVE DAYS SALES OUTSTANDING" [i.e., asset contribution degree] over the lifecycle; generate actual conservative, probable, and assertive delta contributions as well as percentage conservative, probable, and assertive delta contributions [i.e., synthesizing the asset value], all of which reflect or are a measure of the improvements or changes resulting from contribution of the physical asset "COLLATOR" versus the entered baseline values, as previously discussed above; For the example table 442 for the collaborative asset "SALES ORDER ACCEPTANCE" described in the tables 399 and 400; probable and assertive target contributions can be aggregated across all benchmarks for a given role by year for example the probable contribution for the a process benchmark and related digital asset(s), physical asset(s) and collaborative asset(s) can be totaled; all strategy benefits can be aggregated by year (e.g., FY00-FY09) and referenced as an organizational benefit model; For the strategy "IMPROVE DAYS SALES OUTSTANDING" and the role "FINANCE", the conservative target contribution for the process "INVOICE COLLECTION" is $178,500.00 (see FIG. 13), the conservative target contribution for the digital asset "ESS" is $2,720.00 (see FIG. 17), the conservative target contribution for the physical asset "COLLATOR" is $1,001.00 (see FIG. 21)).
Zarb and Zyngier do not explicitly teach a coefficient obtained from a proportion.
Shen teaches a coefficient obtained from a proportion (pars. 21-22, 27-31, 48-49, and 56: e.g., determining a proportion coefficient of each process; determining an average value of proportion components corresponding to the preferred quantity records of each process station as the proportion coefficient).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zarb/Zyngier with Shen because the references are analogous since they are each directed to computer implemented features for optimizing resources/assets with respect to a business strategy, goal, target, or the like, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of calculating an asset contribution degree to an organization, and because modifying Zarb/Zyngier with Shen’s coefficient obtained from a proportion, as claimed, would provide the expected benefit of evaluating organizational strategies based on proportional contribution toward a strategy (Zarb at par. 6); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 6: Zarb further teaches wherein the processing circuitry displays the asset value with respect to the asset being the evaluation target, and the asset contribution degree with respect to the asset being the evaluation target to the organization objective calculated (pars. 108-113, 125-127, 131-135, 138, 140, 151-152, and Figs. 16-17, 24-25, and 28-29: e.g., As illustrated in the interface or table 200 in FIG. 16, conservative, probable, and assertive actual target estimates have been entered for various attributes of the digital asset "ESS". The actual target estimates reflect or are a measure of precise or actual changes to baseline values for the digital asset "ESS"; The benefit information provided in table 238 is a reflection or measure of the annual recurrence and extent for which the digital asset "ESS" makes a contribution to a process "INVOICE COLLECTION" and the strategy "IMPROVE DAYS SALES OUTSTANDING" over the lifecycle; target contributions or "net results" are displayed based on whether the benchmark is targeting a cost savings or revenue increase; result is reported as the ultimate annual target contribution. For example, $711,750,000 (see entry 328)-$533,812,500=$177,937,500 (see entry 334) or the probable target contribution for this physical asset model).
Claim 7: Zarb further teaches wherein the processing circuitry displays the asset value with respect to the asset being the evaluation target, and the asset contribution degree with respect to the asset being the evaluation target to the organization objective calculated (pars. 108-113, 125-127, 131-135, 138, 140, 151-152, and Figs. 16-17, 24-25, and 28-29: e.g., As illustrated in the interface or table 200 in FIG. 16, conservative, probable, and assertive actual target estimates have been entered for various attributes of the digital asset "ESS". The actual target estimates reflect or are a measure of precise or actual changes to baseline values for the digital asset "ESS"; The benefit information provided in table 238 is a reflection or measure of the annual recurrence and extent for which the digital asset "ESS" makes a contribution to a process "INVOICE COLLECTION" and the strategy "IMPROVE DAYS SALES OUTSTANDING" over the lifecycle; target contributions or "net results" are displayed based on whether the benchmark is targeting a cost savings or revenue increase; result is reported as the ultimate annual target contribution. For example, $711,750,000 (see entry 328)-$533,812,500=$177,937,500 (see entry 334) or the probable target contribution for this physical asset model).
Claim 8: Zarb further teaches wherein the processing circuitry displays the asset value with respect to the asset being the evaluation target, and the asset contribution degree with respect to the asset being the evaluation target to the organization objective calculated (pars. 108-113, 125-127, 131-135, 138, 140, 151-152, and Figs. 16-17, 24-25, and 28-29: e.g., As illustrated in the interface or table 200 in FIG. 16, conservative, probable, and assertive actual target estimates have been entered for various attributes of the digital asset "ESS". The actual target estimates reflect or are a measure of precise or actual changes to baseline values for the digital asset "ESS"; The benefit information provided in table 238 is a reflection or measure of the annual recurrence and extent for which the digital asset "ESS" makes a contribution to a process "INVOICE COLLECTION" and the strategy "IMPROVE DAYS SALES OUTSTANDING" over the lifecycle; target contributions or "net results" are displayed based on whether the benchmark is targeting a cost savings or revenue increase; result is reported as the ultimate annual target contribution. For example, $711,750,000 (see entry 328)-$533,812,500=$177,937,500 (see entry 334) or the probable target contribution for this physical asset model).
Claim 10: Zarb further teaches wherein the processing circuitry accepts setting of the evaluation axis (pars. 8, 47, 67, and Fig. 7: allowing a user to select a benchmarking mode [evaluation axis] to analyze an organization; user is allowed to select or otherwise establish a benchmarking mode [i.e., evaluation axis] to analyze a strategy. In some embodiments; In addition, a strategy may be obtained from a user (e.g., the user is allowed to enter, identify, or select one or more strategies); In addition, a strategy may be obtained from a user (e.g., the user is allowed to enter, identify, or select one or more strategies) [also an evaluation axis]).
Claim 11: Zarb further teaches wherein the processing circuitry accepts setting of the evaluation axis (pars. 8, 47, 67, and Fig. 7: allowing a user to select a benchmarking mode [evaluation axis] to analyze an organization; user is allowed to select or otherwise establish a benchmarking mode [i.e., evaluation axis] to analyze a strategy; a strategy may be obtained from a user (e.g., the user is allowed to enter, identify, or select one or more strategies); In addition, a strategy may be obtained from a user (e.g., the user is allowed to enter, identify, or select one or more strategies) [also an evaluation axis]).
Claim 12: Zarb further teaches wherein the processing circuitry accepts setting of the evaluation axis (pars. 8, 47, 67, and Fig. 7: allowing a user to select a benchmarking mode [evaluation axis] to analyze an organization; user is allowed to select or otherwise establish a benchmarking mode [i.e., evaluation axis] to analyze a strategy; a strategy may be obtained from a user (e.g., the user is allowed to enter, identify, or select one or more strategies); In addition, a strategy may be obtained from a user (e.g., the user is allowed to enter, identify, or select one or more strategies) [also an evaluation axis]).
Claim 14: Zarb further teaches wherein the processing circuitry accepts setting of the evaluation axis (pars. 8, 47, 67, and Fig. 7: allowing a user to select a benchmarking mode [evaluation axis] to analyze an organization; user is allowed to select or otherwise establish a benchmarking mode [i.e., evaluation axis] to analyze a strategy; a strategy may be obtained from a user (e.g., the user is allowed to enter, identify, or select one or more strategies); In addition, a strategy may be obtained from a user (e.g., the user is allowed to enter, identify, or select one or more strategies) [also an evaluation axis]).
Claim 15: Zarb further teaches wherein the processing circuitry accepts setting of the evaluation axis (pars. 8, 47, 67, and Fig. 7: allowing a user to select a benchmarking mode [evaluation axis] to analyze an organization; user is allowed to select or otherwise establish a benchmarking mode [i.e., evaluation axis] to analyze a strategy; a strategy may be obtained from a user (e.g., the user is allowed to enter, identify, or select one or more strategies); In addition, a strategy may be obtained from a user (e.g., the user is allowed to enter, identify, or select one or more strategies) [also an evaluation axis]).
Claim 16: Zarb further teaches wherein the processing circuitry accepts setting of the evaluation axis (pars. 8, 47, 67, and Fig. 7: allowing a user to select a benchmarking mode [evaluation axis] to analyze an organization; user is allowed to select or otherwise establish a benchmarking mode [i.e., evaluation axis] to analyze a strategy; a strategy may be obtained from a user (e.g., the user is allowed to enter, identify, or select one or more strategies); In addition, a strategy may be obtained from a user (e.g., the user is allowed to enter, identify, or select one or more strategies) [also an evaluation axis]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Howes et al. (US 2012/0179991): discloses features for projecting project outcome, including calculated weighted contributions (par. 156) and quantitative contribution to an end goal (at least pars. 20-21).
Morisawa et al. (US 2019/0236556): discloses maintenance planning features, including KPI focused planning by evaluating profit, cost, and services in support thereof (at least pars. 10 and 39).
Lyras (US Patent No. 10,956,846): discloses features for identifying relevant information for an enterprise, including relationships between goals and assets (col. 15, lines 20-35).
D. Cho and G. Choi, "Simple numeric model to compute technology-contribution factor for the technology valuation," 2011 Proceedings of PICMET '11: Technology Management in the Energy Smart World (PICMET), Portland, OR, USA, 2011, pp. 1-5: discloses techniques for computing a contribution factor during asset valuation.
M. Z. Ouertani, A. K. Parlikad and D. McFarlane, "Asset information management: research challenges," 2008 Second International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, Marrakech, Morocco, 2008, pp. 361-370: discloses techniques for quantifying the value of information in asset management pursuant to maximizing return on assets, reducing asset maintenance cost, ang gaining a competitive advantage throughout the asset lifecycle.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Timothy A. Padot whose telephone number is 571.270.1252. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30 - 5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571.270.5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TIMOTHY PADOT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
03/11/2026