DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This communication is a final action in response to amendments filed on 7/12/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-22 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites a typographical error in “at learst one of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-22 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-22 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), without providing a practical application integration and without providing significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-22 are directed to a method, system (i.e., apparatus), and medium (i.e., product) which are within the four statutory categories of invention.
As per Step 2A-Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claims 1, 11 and 20 recite the abstract idea of generating insight by programmatically access and retrieve and consolidate the data from a diverse range of external sources to obtain aggregated data, the retrieved data is associated with one or more of process mining, market analysis capabilities, and/or process management; receiving a user query to interact with the aggregated data; generating, in response to the received user query, a twin model enabling visualization and simulation of organizational changes prior to implementation of the organizational changes; apply a plurality of analytical lenses to the aggregated data, each analytical lens being configured to perform a different quantitative or qualitative analysis including at least one of value-of-work analysis, type-of-work classification, and pain-point identification; based upon simulation inputs for the organizational changes, receiving inputs for an adjustment or an optimization of the twin model; and generating, based on the inputs for one of the adjustment and the optimization of the twin model, one or more actionable insights directed to improve efficiency or operational effectiveness, wherein the plurality of analytical lenses are used to consolidate and segment the aggregated data to generate the one or more actionable insights; which include mental processes (observing and evaluating process and market data for judgment and opinion for insights directed to improve efficiency or operational effectiveness), and fundamental economic practice (managing and improving processes), managing personal behavior and interactions between people (following rules and instructions to generate insights directed to improve efficiency or operational effectiveness). Claims 2, 4-10, 12, 14-19, 21-22 are directed to the abstract idea of claim 1 or 11 with further details on the parameters/attributes of the abstract idea which includes mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity for similar reasons as provided above for claim 1 or 11. After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per Step 2A-Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-22 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as system comprising: at least one memory configured to store machine executable instructions; and at least one processor communicatively coupled with the at least one memory and configured to execute the machine executable instructions to.., digital (twin), real-time (i.e., via computer), computer, reinforcement learning model, recurrent neural networks (RNNs) or long short-term memory (LSTM), non-transitory computer-readable medium (CRM) storing machine executable instructions thereon, which, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to.., external platforms; these limitations are not enough to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-22 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as system comprising: at least one memory configured to store machine executable instructions; and at least one processor communicatively coupled with the at least one memory and configured to execute the machine executable instructions to.., digital (twin), real-time (i.e., via computer), computer, reinforcement learning model, recurrent neural networks (RNNs) or long short-term memory (LSTM), non-transitory computer-readable medium (CRM) storing machine executable instructions thereon, which, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to..; these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-22 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and would not overcome all of the rejections.
Arguments on rejections under 35 USC 101:
Applicants argued that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s claimed invention directed to the abstract idea of mental processes (observing and evaluating process and market data for judgment and opinion for insights directed to improve efficiency or operational effectiveness), and fundamental economic practice (managing and improving processes), managing personal behavior and interactions between people (following rules and instructions to generate insights directed to improve efficiency or operational effectiveness).
Applicants argued that the claims are directed to practical application or significantly more of an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Additional elements of the claims are not enough to qualify as a practical application/significantly more being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and do not recite significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). Further, the claimed invention does not pertain to the fact pattern of Desjardins, Contour IP v GoPro, Recentive analytics v Fox decisions or cases.
Arguments on rejections under 35 USC 102/103:
Rejections under this section have been withdrawn based on applicants’ amendments. Closest prior art to the invention includes: Roy et al (US 20230385707 A1), Reh et al (US 20200293564 A1). None of the prior art alone or in combination teaches the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Additional relevant art not relied upon includes:
Durvasula et al (US 20250086554 A1), regarding “[0041] In some implementations, recommendation system 120 receives feedback derived from user interactions and updates the digital representation based on the feedback. For example, the feedback can include feedback derived from user interactions within the virtual environment. [0042] Digital representation engine 149 can support the generation of provision of at least one digital representation for a user (e.g., XR representation and/or non-XR representation). In some implementations, digital representation engine 149 receives user feedback, and updates the at least one digital representation based on the user feedback. In some implementations, digital representation engine 149 can convert a first digital representation into a second digital representation.”
CELLA et al (US 20220036302 A1), regarding “In embodiments, the machine learning model is configured to make suggestions to a user of the information technology system via an interface regarding potential changes to the plurality of sensors that would improve simulation of the value chain entities via the digital twin system. ”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHMET YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)272-3257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
Sincerely,
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
