DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
This action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 7/10/2026. Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 12-16 are amended. No claims have been added. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1-10 are withdrawn. Claims 11-16 are currently examined.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/17/2026.
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 11-16 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 11-16 are directed to a system. Therefore, claims 11-16 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim(s) recite(s) (mathematical relationships/formulas, mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity). Specifically the independent claims recite:
mental process: as drafted, the claim recites the limitations of storing employee information, providing employees a login, collecting and converting stored employee data, automatically triggering a flag, in response to a flag, collecting and converting data, and tracking changes which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer,” nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “computer” language, the claim encompasses a user manually tracking employee data. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computing device does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This limitation is a mental process.
certain methods of organizing human activity: The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is a method that allows for users to perform the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and tracking employee data from multiple sources to receive and monitor indicators of employee decision making which is a method of managing personal behavior or interactions between people. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 12-16, will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 11 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 11 is a system comprising “a computer configured using non-transient memory to execute computer readable instructions, the instructions performing steps comprising: storing information in a different database schema and corresponding data structures ….provide access to the plurality of enterprise applications to the company’s employees through login access to an enterprise network to generate and store data in accordance with the database schema…; implement a decision making skill development service software application comprising a plurality of adapters configured to collect and convert the stored data in the other enterprise applications to detected signals carried in the stored data and storing the detected signals in accordance with the database schema and data structure of the decision making skill development service software application; automatically trigging the …software application flag … operating one or more adapters to collect and convert updated stored data in the one or more enterprise applications to detect an updated signal; and tracking changes in the signals in response to updates to the data in the enterprise applications for display and user-interaction.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claim 12 introduces the additional element of “wherein the system is configured to automatically control when the updated signal is determined using the flag.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 13 introduces the additional element of “wherein the system is configured to implement a set of kernels for each adapter, wherein each kernel is adapted to detect a signal carried by the data of a corresponding enterprise application.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 14 introduces the additional element of “wherein the decision making skill software application is configured to receive a notification that data about the particular employee is updated and a separate notification that the particular employee has completed using designated online content.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 15 introduces the additional element of “wherein the decision making skill software application is configured to determine a quantitative score for the decision making skill of a particular employee using one or more signals.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 16 introduces the additional element of “wherein the decision making skill software application is configured to display training options based on the signals.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 11 does not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Claim 11 is a system comprising “a computer configured using non-transient memory to execute computer readable instructions, the instructions performing steps comprising: storing information in a different database schema and corresponding data structures ….provide access to the plurality of enterprise applications to the company’s employees through login access to an enterprise network to generate and store data in accordance with the database schema…; implement a decision making skill development service software application comprising a plurality of adapters configured to collect and convert the stored data in the other enterprise applications to detected signals carried in the stored data and storing the detected signals in accordance with the database schema and data structure of the decision making skill development service software application; automatically trigging the …software application flag … operating one or more adapters to collect and convert updated stored data in the one or more enterprise applications to detect an updated signal; and tracking changes in the signals in response to updates to the data in the enterprise applications for display and user-interaction.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 12 introduces the additional element of “wherein the system is configured to automatically control when the updated signal is determined using the flag.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 13 introduces the additional element of “wherein the system is configured to implement a set of kernels for each adapter, wherein each kernel is adapted to detect a signal carried by the data of a corresponding enterprise application.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 14 introduces the additional element of “wherein the decision making skill software application is configured to receive a notification that data about the particular employee is updated and a separate notification that the particular employee has completed using designated online content.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 15 introduces the additional element of “wherein the decision making skill software application is configured to determine a quantitative score for the decision making skill of a particular employee using one or more signals.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 16 introduces the additional element of “wherein the decision making skill software application is configured to display training options based on the signals.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Therefore based on the above analysis as conducted based on MPEP 2106 from the United States Patent and Trademark Office the claims are viewed as a court recognized abstract idea, are viewed as a judicial exception, does not integrate the claims into a practical application, does not provide significantly more, and does not provide an inventive concept, therefore the claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 13, 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 20170061345 A1) in view of Shah et al. (US 20150339484 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Jones teaches a computer configured using non-transient memory to execute computer readable instructions, the instructions performing steps comprising (Fig. 1, ¶ 50, 71, 128, discloses the claimed structure):
storing information in a different database schema and corresponding data structures in each of a plurality of enterprise applications accessible to a corresponding company’s employees, wherein each application stores information about individual employee in connection with a different service implemented by that enterprise application (Fig. 8, ¶ 59, discloses district data types across different databases. ¶ 48, discloses the different roles of the employee that are saved. ¶ 53, discloses multiple data sources each storing different categories of employee information. ¶ 65-67, discloses multiple data sources with different underlying schemas/structures.);
provide access to the plurality of enterprise applications to the company’s employees … in accordance with the database schema and corresponding data structures of the corresponding enterprise application (¶ 74-75, 46, disclose a login access architecture. ¶ 75, discloses multiple role differentiated interfaces within an enterprise network. ¶ 77-78, disclose a network based access and data persistence.);
implement a decision making skill development service software application comprising a plurality of adapters configured to collect and convert the stored data in the other enterprise applications to detected signals carried in the stored data and storing the detected signals in accordance with the database schema and data structure of the decision making skill development service software application (¶ 80, discloses an ETL that processes directly parallel with adapters configured to collect and convert the stored data. ¶ 79, discloses multiple service components each interfacing with a specific external data source. ¶ 81, discloses a continuous collection from external sources, Fig. 8, ¶ 83, disclose data stored in the monitoring applications separate from the source schemas.);
automatically trigging the decision making skill development service software application flag when data about the individual employee in an enterprise application meets a predefined criteria (Fig. 9A, ¶ 88, disclose a threshold determination that directly maps to the applicant flagging. It also discloses a structural match to the predefined criteria. ¶ 125, discloses automatic triggering on data meeting predefined criteria.);
in response to the flag, operating one or more adapters to collect and convert updated stored data in the one or more enterprise applications to detect an updated signal (¶ 90, discloses directly mapping in response to the flag operation. Undated dated collected and stored after the triggering event. ¶ 111-112, disclose upon receiving updated data, rerunning the analysis to detect updated anomaly. ¶ 89, Fig. 9B);
and tracking changes in the signals in response to updates to the data in the enterprise applications for display and user-interaction (¶ 123, discloses a dashboard tracking changes over time for display. ¶ 122, discloses display of detected anomalies from live data feeds for user interaction. ¶ 77, discloses ongoing tracking and display of changes, Fig. 21).
Jones does not specifically teach the providing the access to the company’s employees through login access.
However, Shah teaches provide access to the plurality of enterprise applications to the company’s employees through login access to an enterprise network to generate and store data in accordance with the database schema and corresponding data structures of the corresponding enterprise application (¶ 28, discloses employee eloign request with credentials. ¶ 29, discloses enterprise network login via enterprise account credentials. ¶ 31, discloses successful authentication gates. ¶ 44, discloses access to a plurality of ERP modules. ¶ 33-34, discloses a company’s employees access to a plurality of enterprise logins. ¶ 37-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Jones to include/perform providing the access to the company’s employees through login access, as taught/suggested by Shah. This known technique is applicable to the system of Jones as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to accessing various type of enterprise data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Shah would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Shah to the teachings of Jones would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such access features into similar systems. Further, applying providing the access to the company’s employees through login access have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the employee to have access to various types and sources of data.
Regarding claim 12, Jones teaches wherein the system is configured to automatically control when the updated signal is determined using the flag (Fig. 9A, ¶ 88-89, discloses a flag/threshold that directly controls the timing of when reevaluation happens. The system does not recollect and reanalyze continuously at all times. And automatic control of timing of updated data collection is gated by a triggering event. ¶ 111-112, discloses a flag controls when the updated determination runs.).
Regarding claim 13, Jones teaches wherein the system is configured to implement a set of kernels for each adapter, wherein each kernel is adapted to detect a signal carried by the data of a corresponding enterprise application (¶ 79, discloses how each service component operates on data from a specific corresponding data source. Each microservice/DLL targets its own specific data source and detects specific signals from it. ¶ 57, discloses multiple analysis modules each operating on specific data types. ¶ 113, discloses different processing logic applied to data from different sources. Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 15, Jones teaches wherein the decision making skill software application is configured to determine a quantitative score for the decision making skill of a particular employee using one or more signals (¶ 117-118, discloses a risk assessment as a form of quantitative and qualitative determination about an employee derived from data. ¶ 112, discloses weighted aggregation of data to produce an overall output. ¶ 129, discloses a confidence level determination from data inputs.).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 20170061345 A1) in view of Shah et al. (US 20150339484 A1) in further view of Hirano et al. (US 20040128189 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Jones and Shah teach the limitations of claim 11. The combination does not specifically teach the claimed multiple notifications.
However, Hirano teaches wherein the decision making skill software application is configured to receive a notification that data about the particular employee is updated and a separate notification that the particular employee has completed using designated online content (¶ 85, discloses a notification of registration. ¶ 111-112, discloses a notification of completed training. ¶ 121-122, 177-178).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Jones to include/perform the claimed multiple notifications, as taught/suggested by Hirano. This known technique is applicable to the system of Jones as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to monitoring employees activities. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Hirano would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Hirano to the teachings of Jones would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such notification features into similar systems. Further, applying providing the access to the company’s employees through login access would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow multiple communications to the users.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 20170061345 A1) in view of Shah et al. (US 20150339484 A1) in further view of Singh et al. (US 20170068922 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Jones and Shah teach the limitations of claim 11 including decision making. The combination does not specifically teach display training options based on the signals.
However, Singh teaches wherein the decision making skill software application is configured to display training options based on the signals (abstract, discloses a skill gap. ¶ 42, 49-50, discloses displaying training due to skill gap. ¶ 56, 67, 104, 133).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Jones to include/perform display training options based on the signals, as taught/suggested by Singh. This known technique is applicable to the system of Jones as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to monitoring employees activities. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Singh would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Singh to the teachings of Jones would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such displaying features into similar systems. Further, applying display training options based on the signals have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the users to know which trainings might be beneficial to their current work.
Other pertinent prior art includes Miller (US 20220067208 A1) discloses providing access, security, anonymization and compliance evaluation for enterprise data. Botla et al. (US 20230274232 A1) which discloses onboarding of new hires to an organization. Ghosh et al. (US 8219572 B2) which discloses generalization of object definitions and subsequent crawling across a variety of enterprise applications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached 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 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.
JAMIE H. AUSTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights