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 .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on November 13, 2024.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are independent.
Priority
Applicant claims the priority of a provisional application No. 63/598417, filed on November 13, 2023 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/29/2025 appears to be in compliance with the previsions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-10 are directed to a system comprising a computer processor, which falls within the statutory category of a machine. Claims 11-20 are directed to a method for implementing a Generative AI Opportunity Assessment Tool without tied to a particular machine for performing the steps, which falls outside of the four statutory categories. However, claims 11-20 will be included in Step 2 Analysis for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With respect to claims 11-20, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims are directed to a method without tied to a particular machine in the body of the claims for performing the steps. One factor to consider when determining whether a claim recites a §101 patent eligible process is to determine if the claimed process (1) is tied to a particular machine or; (2) transforms a particular article to a different state or thing. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) aff’d, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (U.S. 2010). (Machine-or-Transformation Test).
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking claim 1 as representative, the claim recites the limitations of “identify a target entity and a set of peer entities, generate a baseline assessment of a financial opportunity, align organization role profiles of the target entity with a taxonomy that classifies work activities and processes, apply a unique set of use case, identify a set of organizational roles, generate a productivity estimate at an activity level based one workforce data, determine an impact comprising a number of workers and total salaries, generate a Generative AI driven workforce capacity value defined by role and function and supplemented with relevant use-cases, generate a current state assessment of existing technology and skills within the target entity relating to Generative AI wherein the current state assessment is based on third party workforce salary and skill data at a role level, and apply the assessment model to the target entity’s workforce data to determine an appropriate change management relating to technology and workforce shaping, and identify a workforce capacity opportunity for the target entity”; dependent claims 2-10 further narrowing and describing the attributes of claim 1. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer processor” configured to, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person can manually identify a target entity and a set of peer entities, generate a baseline assessment…, determine an impact, determine an appropriate change management relating to the technology and workforce shaping, and identify a workforce capacity opportunity for the target entity”, which fall within the “mental processes” grouping. The mere nominal recitation of “a computer processor” and “an interactive user interface” do not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite the additional elements of “a computer processor” and “an interactive user interface”. The Specification describes that “The term “processor” encompasses all apparatus, devices, and machines for processing data, including by way of example a programmable processor, a computer, or multiple processors or computers” (See ¶ 116), and examples of user interface as shown in Fig. 3-11. When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). Again, automating an abstract process does not convert it into a practical application. See also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or 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 effect designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite the additional elements of “a computer processor” and “an interactive user interface”. The Specification describes that “The term “processor” encompasses all apparatus, devices, and machines for processing data, including by way of example a programmable processor, a computer, or multiple processors or computers” (See ¶ 116), and examples of user interface as shown in Fig. 3-11. When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting data over a network. However, implementing on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (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); 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); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326-27, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claim reciting multiple abstract ideas, i.e., the manipulation of information through a series of mental steps and a mathematical calculation, was held directed to an abstract idea)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-10 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims 11-20 parallel claims 1-10—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Portnoy et al., (US 2019/0066011, hereinafter: Portnoy), and in view of Hanley, (US 2014/0180706, hereinafter: Hanley), and further in view of Cella et al., (US 2025/0384341, hereinafter: Cella).
Regarding claim 1, Portnoy discloses a system for implementing a Generative AI Opportunity Assessment Tool comprising:
an input configured to access one or more data sources that store and manage workforce data for at least one target entity (see ¶ 10, ¶ 56-57, ¶ 69, ¶ 166-168, ¶ 353);
an interactive user interface that communicates with one or more user devices via a communication network (see Fig. 3(b); ¶ 10, ¶ 57, ¶ 60, ¶ 117, ¶ 354); and
a computer processor coupled to the input, the interactive user interface and the one or more data sources, the computer processor further configured to (see ¶ 351, claim 16):
identify a target entity and a set of peer entities (see ¶ 56, ¶ 160-168);
generate a productivity estimate at an activity level based on workforce data relevant to the target entity (see Fig. 7(b); ¶ 87, ¶ 227, ¶ 239, ¶ 288);
determine an impact comprising a number of workers and total salaries (see Fig. 4(d); Fig. 6; ¶ 257-259);
generate a Generative AI driven workforce capacity value defined by role and function and supplemented with relevant use-cases (see ¶ 9, ¶ 49-51, ¶ 224, ¶ 288, ¶ 330, ¶ 345-347);
generate a current state assessment of existing technology and skills within the target entity relating to Generative AI wherein the current state assessment is based on third party workforce salary and skills data at a role level (see Fig. 6; Fig. 7(j), pg. 2; ¶ 90-96, ¶ 121, ¶ 272-268, ¶ 293, ¶ 334);
apply the assessment model to the target entity’s workforce data to determine an appropriate change management relating to technology and workforce shaping (see ¶ 8, ¶ 73, ¶ 87, ¶ 247, ¶ 334, ¶ 334-340); and
identify a workforce capacity opportunity for the target entity (see ¶ 49-54, ¶ 228-233, ¶ 332-334 ).
Portnoy does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Hanley in an analogous art for human service management discloses
generate a baseline assessment, by applying an assessment model, of a financial opportunity for the target entity in leveraging Generative AI at scale (see ¶ 4, ¶ 54, ¶ 106, ¶ 121, claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Portnoy to include teaching of Hanley in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of 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.
Portnoy discloses the workforce management system may evaluate and validate managers’ and employees’ survey responses against current levels and against each other using artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing techniques (see ¶ 158-164); and the computer may compute the organizational structure based on alignment of the activities or competencies of two suborganizations of the group (see ¶ 10); and the workforce demographic analysis may access an organization’s health and key metrics include employee-contractor composition and ratios and influences with management organization develop strategy, attrition trend analysis…and alignment of employee’s goals with the organization’s mission (see ¶ 166).
Portnoy and Hanley do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cella in an analogous art for training artificial intelligence models discloses
a generative AI (see ¶ 2475, ¶ 2524, ¶ 2805, ¶ 2814);
align organization role profiles of the target entity with a taxonomy that classifies work activities and processes (see ¶ 304-307, ¶ 409, ¶ 1367, ¶ 1755, ¶ 2773); and
applying a unique set of use cases, identify a set of organizational roles that illustrate Generative AI agents of change (see ¶ 28, ¶ 32-34, ¶ 732, ¶ 796, ¶ 2492, ¶ 2565).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Portnoy and in view of Hanley to include the teaching of Cella in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit by adapting new technologies to improve the accuracy of data processing. Since the combination of 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.
Regarding claim 2, Portnoy discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the workforce capacity opportunity comprises summary analytic findings and analytic details (see Fig. 3a-g; ¶ 53-54, ¶ 71, ¶ 254, ¶ 322, ¶ 339).
In addition, claim 2 merely describes the attributes of the workforce capacity opportunity is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 3, Portnoy discloses the workforce management may estimate the manpower required for the given functions or activities (see ¶ 184).
Portnoy and Hanley do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cella discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the summary analytic findings comprises an estimated Generative AI driven workforce capacity value and a Generative AI current state readiness (see ¶ 277-279, ¶ 564, ¶ 616, ¶ 732, ¶ 2495).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Portnoy and in view of Hanley to include the teaching of Cella in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit by adapting new technologies to improve the accuracy of data processing. Since the combination of 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.
In addition, claim 3 merely describes the attributes of the summary analytic findings is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 4, Portnoy and Hanley do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cella discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the Generative AI current state readiness comprises workers with foundational or adjacent skills (see ¶ 445, ¶ 2072); total headcount with AI related roles (see ¶ 2006, ¶ 2497-2498); and foundational or adjacent technologies (see ¶ 2259, ¶ 2557).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Portnoy and in view of Hanley to include the teaching of Cella in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit by adapting new technologies to improve the accuracy of data processing. Since the combination of 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.
In addition, claim 4 merely describes the attributes of the Generative AI current state readiness is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 5, Portnoy and Hanley do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cella discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the analytic details comprises an estimated value functional breakdown and peer benchmarking and a total Generative AI-driven workforce capacity value graphic (see ¶ 1216, ¶ 1219, ¶ 2600-2601).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Portnoy and in view of Hanley to include the teaching of Cella in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit by adapting new technologies to improve the accuracy of data processing. Since the combination of 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.
In addition, claim 5 merely describes the attributes of the analytic details is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 6, Portnoy and Hanley do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cella discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the total Generative AI-driven workforce capacity value graphic comprises top functions by value (see ¶ 2464-2465, ¶ 2471).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Portnoy and in view of Hanley to include the teaching of Cella in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit by adapting new technologies to improve the accuracy of data processing. Since the combination of 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.
In addition, claim 6 merely describes the attributes of the total Generative AI-driven workforce capacity value graphic is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 7, Portnoy and Hanley do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cella discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the top functions by value comprise supply chain opportunities (see ¶ 1827, ¶ 2734); sales opportunities (see ¶ 278, ¶ 338); and finance opportunities (see ¶ 1077, ¶ 2932).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Portnoy and in view of Hanley to include the teaching of Cella in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit by adapting new technologies to improve the accuracy of data processing. Since the combination of 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.
In addition, claim 7 merely describes the attributes of the top functions by value is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 8, Portnoy and Hanley do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cella discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the workforce capacity opportunity comprises technology readiness that includes: concentration by product category and modern technology framework alignment graphic (see ¶ 666, ¶ 1512, ¶ 2713).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Portnoy and in view of Hanley to include the teaching of Cella in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit by adapting new technologies to improve the accuracy of data processing. Since the combination of 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.
In addition, claim 8 merely describes the attributes of the workforce capacity opportunity is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 9, Portnoy and Hanley do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cella discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the product category comprises: automation, environment, intelligence, interaction, information and cyber (see ¶ 307, ¶ 900, ¶ 2710).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Portnoy and in view of Hanley to include the teaching of Cella in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit by adapting new technologies to improve the accuracy of data processing. Since the combination of 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.
In addition, claim 9 merely describes the attributes of the product category is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 10, Portnoy discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the workforce capacity opportunity comprises a headcount ratio and an allocation of AI related roles (see ¶ 168-169, ¶ 180)
In addition, claim 10 merely describes the attributes of the workforce capacity opportunity is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 11, Portnoy discloses a method for implementing a Generative AI Opportunity Assessment Tool comprising the steps of:
identifying a target entity and a set of peer entities (see ¶ 56, ¶ 160-168);
generating a productivity estimate at an activity level based on workforce data relevant to the target entity (see Fig. 7(b); ¶ 87, ¶ 227, ¶ 239, ¶ 288);
determining an impact comprising a number of workers and total salaries (see Fig. 4(d); Fig. 6; ¶ 257-259);
generating a Generative AI driven workforce capacity value defined by role and function and supplemented with relevant use-cases (see ¶ 9, ¶ 49-51, ¶ 224, ¶ 288, ¶ 330, ¶ 345-347);
generating a current state assessment of existing technology and skills within the target entity relating to Generative AI wherein the current state assessment is based on third party workforce salary and skills data at a role level (see Fig. 6; Fig. 7(j), pg. 2; ¶ 90-96, ¶ 121, ¶ 272-268, ¶ 293, ¶ 334);
applying the assessment model to the target entity’s workforce data to determine an appropriate change management relating to technology and workforce shaping (see Fig. 6; Fig. 7(j), pg. 2; ¶ 90-96, ¶ 121, ¶ 272-268, ¶ 293, ¶ 334); and
identifying a workforce capacity opportunity for the target entity (see ¶ 49-54, ¶ 228-233, ¶ 332-334).
Portnoy does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Hanley in an analogous art for human service management discloses
generating a baseline assessment, by applying an assessment model, of a financial opportunity for the target entity in leveraging Generative AI at scale (see ¶ 4, ¶ 54, ¶ 106, ¶ 121, claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Portnoy to include teaching of Hanley in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of 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.
Portnoy discloses the workforce management system may evaluate and validate managers’ and employees’ survey responses against current levels and against each other using artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing techniques (see ¶ 158-164); and the computer may compute the organizational structure based on alignment of the activities or competencies of two suborganizations of the group (see ¶ 10); and the workforce demographic analysis may access an organization’s health and key metrics include employee-contractor composition and ratios and influences with management organization develop strategy, attrition trend analysis…and alignment of employee’s goals with the organization’s mission (see ¶ 166).
Portnoy and Hanley do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cella in an analogous art for training artificial intelligence models discloses
a generative AI (see ¶ 2475, ¶ 2524, ¶ 2805, ¶ 2814);
aligning organization role profiles of the target entity with a taxonomy that classifies work activities and processes (see ¶ 304-307, ¶ 409, ¶ 1367, ¶ 1755, ¶ 2773); and
applying a unique set of use cases, identifying a set of organizational roles that illustrate Generative AI agents of change (see ¶ 28, ¶ 32-34, ¶ 732, ¶ 796, ¶ 2492, ¶ 2565).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Portnoy and in view of Hanley to include the teaching of Cella in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit by adapting new technologies to improve the accuracy of data processing. Since the combination of 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.
Regarding claim 12, Portnoy discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the workforce capacity opportunity comprises summary analytic findings and analytic details (see Fig. 3a-g; ¶ 53-54, ¶ 71, ¶ 254, ¶ 322, ¶ 339).
In addition, claim 12 merely describes the attributes of the workforce capacity opportunity is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 13, Portnoy discloses the workforce management may estimate the manpower required for the given functions or activities (see ¶ 184).
Portnoy and Hanley do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cella discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the summary analytic findings comprises an estimated Generative AI driven workforce capacity value and a Generative AI current state readiness (see ¶ 277-279, ¶ 564, ¶ 616, ¶ 732, ¶ 2495).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Portnoy and in view of Hanley to include the teaching of Cella in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit by adapting new technologies to improve the accuracy of data processing. Since the combination of 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.
In addition, claim 13 merely describes the attributes of the summary analytic findings is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 14, Portnoy and Hanley do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cella discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the Generative AI current state readiness comprises workers with foundational or adjacent skills (see ¶ 445, ¶ 2072); total headcount with AI related roles (see ¶ 2006, ¶ 2497-2498); and foundational or adjacent technologies (see ¶ 2259, ¶ 2557).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Portnoy and in view of Hanley to include the teaching of Cella in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit by adapting new technologies to improve the accuracy of data processing. Since the combination of 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.
In addition, claim 14 merely describes the attributes of the Generative AI current state readiness is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 15, Portnoy and Hanley do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cella discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the analytic details comprises an estimated value functional breakdown and peer benchmarking and a total Generative AI-driven workforce capacity value graphic (see ¶ 1216, ¶ 1219, ¶ 2600-2601).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Portnoy and in view of Hanley to include the teaching of Cella in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit by adapting new technologies to improve the accuracy of data processing. Since the combination of 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.
In addition, claim 15 merely describes the attributes of the analytic details is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 16, Portnoy and Hanley do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cella discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the total Generative AI-driven workforce capacity value graphic comprises top functions by value (see ¶ 2464-2465, ¶ 2471).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Portnoy and in view of Hanley to include the teaching of Cella in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit by adapting new technologies to improve the accuracy of data processing. Since the combination of 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.
In addition, claim 16 merely describes the attributes of the total Generative AI-driven workforce capacity value graphic is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 17, Portnoy and Hanley do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cella discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the top functions by value comprise supply chain opportunities (see ¶ 1827, ¶ 2734); sales opportunities (see ¶ 278, ¶ 338); and finance opportunities (see ¶ 1077, ¶ 2932).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Portnoy and in view of Hanley to include the teaching of Cella in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit by adapting new technologies to improve the accuracy of data processing. Since the combination of 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.
In addition, claim 17 merely describes the attributes of the top functions by value is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 18, Portnoy and Hanley do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cella discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the workforce capacity opportunity comprises technology readiness that includes: concentration by product category and modern technology framework alignment graphic (see ¶ 666, ¶ 1512, ¶ 2713).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Portnoy and in view of Hanley to include the teaching of Cella in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit by adapting new technologies to improve the accuracy of data processing. Since the combination of 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.
In addition, claim 18 merely describes the attributes of the workforce capacity opportunity is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 19, Portnoy and Hanley do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Cella discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the product category comprises: automation, environment, intelligence, interaction, information and cyber (see ¶ 307, ¶ 900, ¶ 2710).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Portnoy and in view of Hanley to include the teaching of Cella in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit by adapting new technologies to improve the accuracy of data processing. Since the combination of 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.
In addition, claim 19 merely describes the attributes of the product category is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 20, Portnoy discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the workforce capacity opportunity comprises a headcount ratio and an allocation of AI related roles (see ¶ 168-169, ¶ 180)
In addition, claim 10 merely describes the attributes of the workforce capacity opportunity is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barnes et al., (WO 2007009034 A2) discloses a system for integrating functions of human capital resource management pursuant to workforce development and maintenance
Chishti (WO 2018122614 A2) discloses techniques for L3 paring and workforce management in a contact center system comprising identifying a plurality of contacts waiting for assignment, identifying a plurality of agents available for assignment, and selecting at least one of the plurality of agents with at least one of the plurality of contacts for assignment and connection within the contact center system.
Benson et al., (WO 2022123318 A1) discloses an enterprise workforce management platform for managing workforce and creating workflow for one of a plurality of entities associated with the enterprise.
Petkov Tzvetanov et all, ¶ US 2017/0061362) discloses a method for workforce resources and workforce capital management using artificial intelligence and robotics systems for supporting business goals and objectives.
Gutu et al., “Assessment of a Workforce Sustainability Tool Through Leadership and Digitalization”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20 (2), 136. IP.com, Electronic Publication Date: 11-Jan-2023.
Pittman et al., “Workforce planning and development in times of delivery system transformation”, IP.com, Electric Publication Date: 23-Sep-2016.
Riviera et al., “A User Centric Assessment of Federated Learning Frameworks. Applied Research, IEEE Access, 23-Sep-2023.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights