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
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 01/08/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 01/08/2025 has been considered (see form-1449, MPEP 609).
Drawings
The drawings filed on 01/08/2025 are accepted.
Note: According to the paragraph [0059] of instant application disclose “ the terms “machine-readable medium” and “computer-readable medium” refer to any computer program product, apparatus, cloud storage, internet of things, and/or device (e.g., magnetic discs, optical disks, memory, programmable logic devices (PLDs)) used to provide machine instructions and/or data to a programmable processor, including a machine-readable medium that receives machine instructions as a machine-readable signal. The “machine-readable medium” and “computer-readable medium,” however, do not include transitory signals”. After analyzing and consideration, the examiner acknowledge, the claims 17-20 do not include signal per se.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,216711. Although the conflicting are not patentably distinct from each other because since the claims of the Patent No. 12,216711 contains every element of the claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate the claims of the instant application 19/013453. (See table below).
Instant Application claim 1
Patent No. 12,216711 claim 1
A computing system comprising: a data store configured to store document data of a process; and at least one processor configured to: query the data store for the document data of the process, identify a plurality of milestones that occur within the process and one or more blockers, at least a portion of the plurality of milestones and the one or more blockers being identified from a group of known milestones and blockers, each blocker of the one or more blockers comprising an occurrence or event which prevents at least one milestone from among the plurality of milestones from completing based on the document data, generate a graph model of the process based on a predefined template, wherein the graph model comprises a plurality of nodes corresponding to the plurality of milestones and the blockers, the graph model including directional edges disposed between various nodes of the plurality of nodes, each of the directional edges including an indication of an amount of process instances which follow a particular direction between two of the various nodes, and display, via a user interface, the graph model of the process.
A computing system comprising: a data store configured to store document data of a process; and at least one processor configured to: query the data store for the document data of the process, identify a plurality of milestones that occur within the process and one or more blockers, at least a portion of the plurality of milestones and the one or more blockers being identified from a group of known milestones and blockers, each individual milestone of the plurality of milestones comprising an event required to occur during the process, and each blocker of the one or more blockers comprising an occurrence or event which prevents at least one milestone from among the plurality of milestones from completing based on the document data, generate a graph model of the process based on a predefined template, wherein the graph model comprises a plurality of nodes corresponding to the plurality of milestones and the blockers, the graph model including directional edges disposed between various nodes of the plurality of nodes, each of the directional edges including an indication of an amount of process instances which follow a particular direction between two of the various nodes, identify completion ratios of the plurality of milestones based on a log of events of a plurality of executions of the process, and display, via a user interface, the graph model of the process and illustrate the completion ratios within the graph model.
Claims 1-7 of Patent No. 12,216711 satisfies all the elements of claims 2-8 of the instant application, and as such, anticipates the claims of instant application.
Instant Application claim 9
Patent No. 12,216711 claim 8
A method comprising: querying a data store for document data of a process; identifying a plurality of milestones that occur within the process and one or more blockers, each individual milestone of the plurality of milestones comprising an event required to occur during the process, and each blocker of the one or more blockers comprising an occurrence or event which prevents at least one milestone from among the plurality of milestones from completing based on the document data; generating a graph model of the process based on a predefined template, wherein the graph model comprises a plurality of nodes corresponding to the plurality of milestones and the blockers, the graph model including directional edges disposed between various nodes of the plurality of nodes, each of the directional edges including an indication of an amount of process instances which follow a particular direction between two of the various nodes; and displaying the graph model of the process via a user interface.
A method comprising: querying a data store for document data of a process; identifying a plurality of milestones that occur within the process and one or more blockers at least a portion of the plurality of milestones and the one or more blockers being identified from a group of known milestones and blockers, each individual milestone of the plurality of milestones comprising an event required to occur during the process, and each blocker of the one or more blockers comprising an occurrence or event which prevents at least one milestone from among the plurality of milestones from completing based on the document data, wherein the identifying further comprises identifying completion ratios of the plurality of milestones based on a log of events of a plurality of executions of the process, and illustrating the completion ratios within a graph model displayed via the user interface; generating the graph model of the process based on a predefined template, wherein the graph model comprises a plurality of nodes corresponding to the plurality of milestones and the blockers, the graph model including directional edges disposed between various nodes of the plurality of nodes, each of the directional edges including an indication of an amount of process instances which follow a particular direction between two of the various nodes; and displaying the graph model of the process via a user interface.
Claims 8-14 of Patent No. 12,216711 satisfies all the elements of claims 10-16 of the instant application, and as such, anticipates the claims of instant application.
Instant Application claim 17
Patent No. 12,216711 claim 15
A computer-readable medium comprising instructions which when executed by a processor cause a computer to perform a method comprising: querying a data store for document data of a process; identifying a plurality of milestones that occur within the process and one or more blockers, at least a portion of the plurality of milestones and blockers being identified from a group of known milestones and blockers, each blocker of the one or more blockers comprising an occurrence or event which prevents at least one milestone from among the plurality of milestones from completing based on the document data; generating a graph model of the process based on a predefined template, wherein the graph model comprises a plurality of nodes corresponding to the plurality of milestones and the blockers, the graph model including directional edges disposed between various nodes of the plurality of nodes, each of the directional edges including an indication of an amount of process instances which follow a particular direction between two of the various nodes; and displaying the graph model of the process via a user interface.
A computer-readable medium comprising instructions which when executed by a processor cause a computer to perform a method comprising: querying a data store for document data of a process; identifying a plurality of milestones that occur within the process and one or more blockers, at least a portion of the plurality of milestones and blockers being identified from a group of known milestones and blockers, each individual milestone of the plurality of milestones comprising an event required to occur during the process, and each blocker of the one or more blockers comprising an occurrence or event which prevents at least one milestone from among the plurality of milestones from completing based on the document data, wherein the identifying further comprises identifying completion ratios of the plurality of milestones based on a log of events of a plurality of executions of the process, and illustrating the completion ratios within a graph model displayed via the user interface; generating the graph model of the process based on a predefined template, wherein the graph model comprises a plurality of nodes corresponding to the plurality of milestones and the blockers, the graph model including directional edges disposed between various nodes of the plurality of nodes, each of the directional edges including an indication of an amount of process instances which follow a particular direction between two of the various nodes; and displaying the graph model of the process via a user interface.
Claims 15-17 of Patent No. 12,216711 satisfies all the elements of claims 18-20 of the instant application, and as such, anticipates the claims of instant application.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. (US Patent 11,789,837, hereinafter Jain), in view of Boucher et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0315979, hereinafter Boucher).
As per as claim 1, Jain discloses:
A computing system comprising:
a data store configured to store document data of a process (Jain, e.g., [col. 77-col. 78, lines 65-14] and [col. 87, lines 6-11], “…database may store data sets for multiple different subjects …”); and
at least one processor (Jain, e.g., [col. 161, lines 1-10], [col. 286, lines 25-35], “computer processors”) configured to:
query the data store for the document data of the process (Jain, e.g., [col. 121, lines 12-20] and [col. 241, lines 40-60], “...selection criteria for the monitoring group...determine that there are commonalities among the members...from those of other members of the monitoring group or rare in the other members of the monitoring group...selection criteria to find other individuals similar to those in the subgroup...”) (the examiner asserts, select criteria to find similar data which is equivalent to query the data store for the document),
identify a plurality of milestones that occur within the process and one or more blockers, at least a portion of the plurality of milestones and the one or more blockers being identified from a group of known milestones and blockers, each blocker of the one or more blockers comprising an occurrence or event which prevents at least one milestone from among the plurality of milestones from completing based on the document data (Jain, e.g., [col. 56, lines 3-20, lines 34-57], (percent complete of research (not complete, incomplete enrolled or applied)) (the examiner asserts, percent incomplete = blockers that prevent completing based on the document data) and , [col. 61, lines 40-50], [col. 65, lines 2-8], “...particular study completion percentage is reached or added since a last prediction was made (e.g., prediction is made every time is determined that the current study completion percentage is 5% closer to 100% from a prior study completion percentage corresponding to when an immediately preceding prediction was made), in response to new data being collected or received (e.g., from the study participants), after a milestone in the study is reached, and/or after a stage or phase of the study changes...” and further see [col. 68-lines 5-14], “…search the user profile database and identify at least three additional individuals in the first category that meet the eligibility criteria for the monitoring program …” and [col.91, lines 10-55], “…tasks (e.g., tests, appointments, exercises, etc.), message content, message frequency, message time, task or event schedule…”) (the examiner asserts the milestone equivalent to, goals, archiving of tasks, complete etc.) ) and the examiner asserts blockers is a failure/error/incomplete/lack/error utility or limited applicability or low rate, etc. [col. 29, lines 50-67], “…the study participants are not representative of a reference population that is to use the new pharmaceutical, then data or results obtained from the study may lack utility or otherwise have only limited applicability… end of the study (or the target group composition cannot be achieved within a margin of error), the results of the study may fail to identify side effects of those in groups that are typically excluded from studies due to the higher risk they present (e.g., pregnant women, elderly persons, those with particular diseases or other serious ailments, etc.), of those in groups that are typically less likely to join or complete a study, those in groups that have difficulty meeting the requirements of a study…”),
generate a graph model of the process based on a predefined template, wherein the graph model comprises a plurality of nodes corresponding to the plurality of milestones and the blockers, the graph model including directional edges disposed between various nodes of the plurality of nodes, each of the directional edges including an indication of an amount of process instances which follow a particular direction between two of the various nodes (Jain, e.g., [col. 88, lines 52-67], “...distribution clustering model, a subspace clustering model, a group clustering model, a graph clustering model, signed-based clustering model, or a neural network model...two or more clustering models may be used to group the subjects...”, [col. 226, lines 28-40], “...making various types of adaptations (e.g., adding a cohort, adding an eligibility criterion, adding a new type of data collection, etc.), with the specific details (e.g., which characteristics for the new cohort, which values specify the new eligibility criterion, which of various types of data in a taxonomy to begin collection for, etc.), able to be defined later and incorporated in the appropriate template...” and [col. 267, lines 40-49], “... taxonomy (e.g., as weights for edges between nodes for different topics or data items) to determine the closeness or relevance of the topics and data types involved in the pattern to the objectives...” and further see [col. 269, lines 30-49], “...taxonomy of data types and topics (e.g., symptoms, diseases, body systems, etc.) and their relationships. For example, the taxonomy can be a graph in which different topics and data types are nodes, and connections among the nodes have weights that indicate the strength of the relationship. For example, the data types of heart rate and blood pressure can have strong connections with exercise, cardiology, heart disease, etc., moderate-strength connections with topics like headaches, migraines, fatigue, etc., and low-strength connections with even less-related items such as sleep quality, diabetes...”), and
display, via a user interface, the graph model of the process (Jain, e.g., [col. 269, lines 30-49], “... that prompted further monitoring (e.g., heart rate in the example above) can be included and the level of monitoring (e.g., frequency, accuracy, precision, etc.) can be increased...the computer system can access a taxonomy of data types and topics (e.g., symptoms, diseases, body systems, etc.) and their relationships...the taxonomy can be a graph in which different topics and data types are nodes, and connections among the nodes...” and [col. 276, lines 1-5], “...display in an interface that a user can browse and view the factors in monitoring data that prompted the opportunity, the topic or question to be addressed in the new monitoring program, the parameters for the monitoring program...”).
To make records clearer regarding to the features of “generate a graph model of the process based on a predefined template” (although as stated above Jain functional disclose the features of creating a template base on various types [col. 226, lines 28-40]).
However Boucher, in an analogous art, discloses “generate a graph model of the process based on a predefined template” (Boucher, e.g., [0060], [0077], [1075], [1088], “... a predefined data association value, and determining the predefined data association value in response to at least one of a template data association value or a user selected data association value...” and [1084], [1120], “...a table, graph, chart, and/or image...a person, an entity, a project or task, a recipe, one or more elements of a row on a table, one or more elements of a chart, and/or one or more elements of a graph...” and [1124], “... multiple table linkages, as well as other data linkage types... table to a graph, a table to a chart, a table to a prose description where the table represents a structured data view of one or more aspects of the prose description...” and further see fig. 66, associating with texts description, [1151], “...constructs the dependency graph to determine dependency relationships within objects, data values, and/or formulas within the document...”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Boucher and Jain to creating a data view in response to the user selection and displaying at least a portion of the data view in response to the extract value (Boucher, e.g., [0057-0062]).
As per as claim 2, the combination of Boucher and Jain disclose:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to compare the graph model of the process to a best practice model to identify a node to add to the graph model of the process, and display a recommendation with information about the node via the user interface (Boucher, e.g., [1124-01127], “…the linked object may be any type of object, such as a “card”, a graph, and/or a chart… change the view is compared to… adding columns, deleting the columns, and/or moving the columns….a line, data series, bar, pie slice, or other aspect of an object such as a graph or figure...” and [1274] disclose (action link with recommended assigned)) and further see (Jain, e.g., [col. 20, lines 39-59], “…generating a recommendation to adjust the analyzed devices if the selected devices… administer with a recommendation to add a device from the underrepresented group, remove a device from one of the overrepresented groups, to add a device from the underrepresented group and remove a device form one of the overrepresented groups…”).
As per as claim 3, the combination of Boucher and Jain disclose:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to extract data of a plurality of executions of the process from a database table, and generate a log of events of the plurality of executions of the process based on a plurality of process events within each execution from among the plurality of executions and timestamps of the plurality of process events (Jain, e.g., [col. 141, lines 40-67], “…different levels of compliance, or different patterns, trends, or progressions of compliance, including time series of collection events (e.g., daily pattern of 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, . . . where “1” indicates successful completion of a requirement on a day and “0” indicates failure to complete the requirement that day…’) and [col. 196, lines 27-43], “…monitoring can be performed actively… status, event logs, usage statistics, collected data, metadata, context data, and more…”).
As per as claim 4, the combination of Boucher and Jain disclose:
The computing system of claim 1, further comprising comparing the graph model to a best practice model to identify a node to recommend to add to the graph model, and displaying information about the node to a user via a user interface (Jain, e.g., [col. 35, lines 35-45], (completion percentage), and see [col. 44, lines 27-40], “…average percentage of users in a particular group completing a study…” and [col. 45, lines 52-67], [col. 115, lines 50-65], “… completion rates…”)).
As per as claim 5, the combination of Boucher and Jain disclose:
The computing system of claim 3, wherein the plurality of executions of the process correspond to a plurality of respective front-end users executing the process via a software application (Jain, e.g., [col. 25, lines 10-54] and [col., 84-85, lines 50-10] and further see [col. 98, lines 2-32], [col. 287, lines 37-42], “… an application server, or that includes a front end component, e.g., a client computer having a graphical user interface or a Web browser through which a user can interact with an implementation of the invention, or any combination of one or more such back end, middleware, or front end components…”)).
As per as claim 6, the combination of Boucher and Jain disclose:
The computing system of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate a plurality of event logs for the plurality of milestones, respectively, and illustrate data from the plurality of event logs in the plurality of nodes in the graph model, respectively (Jain, e.g., [col. 196, lines 30-67], event logs, [col. 269, lines 30-50], “…taxonomy of data types and topics (e.g., symptoms, diseases, body systems, etc.) and their relationships…the taxonomy can be a graph in which different topics and data types are nodes, and connections among the nodes have weights that indicate the strength of the relationship…”).
As per as claim 7, the combination of Boucher and Jain disclose:
The computing system of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is configured to infer a virtual event exists in the process based on the document data, and add a node to the graph model based on the inferred virtual event (Jain, e.g., [col. 30-col.31, lines 65-10], add any another subject to the nodes) and [col. 196, lines 30-67], event logs, [col. 269, lines 30-50]) (the examiner asserts, events, data types, subject types can be from other source could be a virtual event)) .
As per as claim 8, the combination of Boucher and Jain disclose:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate two or more nodes in the graph model for a milestone based on a blocker of the milestone (Jain, e.g., [col. Figs. 6A-6B, associating with texts description, [col. 59, lines 64-col. 60, lines 17], and see [col. 269, lines 32-47], “…the taxonomy can be a graph in which different topics and data types are nodes, and connections among the nodes… the data types of heart rate and blood pressure can have strong connections with exercise, cardiology, heart disease, etc., moderate-strength connections with topics like headaches, migraines, fatigue, etc.…” and [col. 267, lines 40-49], “... taxonomy (e.g., as weights for edges between nodes for different topics or data items) to determine the closeness or relevance of the topics and data types involved in the pattern to the objectives...”)).
Claims 9-16 are essentially the same as claims 1-8 except that they set forth the claimed invention as a method rather a system, respectively and correspondingly, therefore is rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claims 1-8.
Claims 17-20 are essentially the same as claims 1-4 except that they set forth the claimed invention as a computer readable medium rather a system, respectively and correspondingly, therefore is rejected under the same reasons set forth in rejections of claims 1-4.
Additional Art Considered
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicants’ disclosure.
The following patents and papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicants’ invention with respect to generate a process graph with important process insights in a manner that is significantly faster and answers questions most customers have through the user of standardization.
a. Piersol et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0060627, hereafter Piersol); “Multi-Provider Forms Processing System With Quality Of Service” disclose distributing processing between providers and client devices with a quality of service rating includes a plurality of portable computing devices, a plurality of service providers and provides ratings for the service providers that are used in selection of services providers and processing of compound documents.
Piersol also teaches monitors the logs for completion as well as restarts, attempts, failure, reworked and re-performed transaction steps and provides ratings [0006], [0038-0039].
Piersol further teaches subjects, tasks, event [0040], ratio or event complete/fail (blockers) [0041], event log [0089].
b. Roman et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0011744, hereafter Roman); “Communication Management system” disclose automatically routing documents between users as milestones are completed and recipients of the documents can be selected dynamically based on measures of their respective performance, wherein inbound and output communications to or from users can be dynamically muted to additional users based on tasks or task milestones.
Roman further teaches milestone completion events in the event log [0044], [0081], [0082].
Roman also teaches event log and tasks database [0013], [0017], [0044].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3173. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:45 AM - 6:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/TUAN A PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163