Patent Application 17941843 - AI-BASED SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SOFTWARE COMPLIANCE

Title: AI-BASED SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SOFTWARE COMPLIANCE
Application Information

Invention Title: AI-BASED SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SOFTWARE COMPLIANCE
Application Number: 17941843
Submission Date: 2025-04-09T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2022-09-09T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2022-09-09T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 705
National Sub-Class: 007170
Examiner Employee Number: 83659
Art Unit: 3624
Tech Center: 3600
Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 1
Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:
US 0390470🔗
US 0334731🔗
Office Action Text


    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 .
 
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114

A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection.  Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.  Applicant's submission filed on 09 March 2025 has been entered.
 
This Continued Examination Office Action is in reply to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 09 March 2025.
Claims 21, 23-25, 27-29, 31 have been amended.  
Claims 21-32 are currently pending and have been examined.


Response to Amendment

In the previous office action, Claims 21-32 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Applicants have not amended Claims 21-32 to provide statutory support and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the below new ground of rejection.  

Response to Arguments

Applicant’s arguments filed 09 March 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.  
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection for Claims 21-32, Applicants argue that: (1) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.  Examiner respectfully disagrees.  Commensurate with the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG), the October 2019 Update:  Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update”) and updated with the addition of new Examples 47-49 published July 2024, the claims are continued analyzed based on these new guidelines and is detailed below in the maintained rejection under 35 USC 101.  Applicant argues that as amended, Applicant states, basically: “…the elements of the claims (individually or in combination) do not fall into any of the categories…(i.e., Examiner cited [Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; Certain methods of organizing human activity –marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)]); and determining an audit for software compliance to improve network security… ” (see Remarks/Arguments pages 6-9).  However the Examiner respectfully disagrees.  The claims still recite Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; Certain methods of organizing human activity –marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and more particularly Mathematical concepts. (emphasis added).  The new “July 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, including on Artificial Intelligence” discusses several new examples, particularly Example 47 regarding “This example illustrates the application of the eligibility analysis to claims that recite limitations specific to artificial intelligence, particularly the use of an artificial neural network to identify or detect anomalies”.  Examiner notes that Applicant should consider this particular example in that claims 1, 2, 3 were analyzed because of recitation of a judicial exception with claims 1 and 3 passing the entire (abstract idea) Step analysis as eligible because the claims as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.  However, Examiner points to the analysis for the example claim 2 with regard to Applicant’s instant and currently recited Claims 21-32.  In Example 47, claim 2 is ineligible because it recites a judicial exception (abstract idea), and the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application (and is thus directed to an abstract idea), and the claim does not provide significantly more than the exception (does not provide an inventive concept).  From Example 47’s [Claim 2] analysis, claim 2 recites a method of using an artificial neural network but with more detail recited through limitations (a)-(f) than Applicant’s broadly recited step limitations.  Applicant’s “determining; predicting, with at least one artificial intelligence module; establishing, sending; retrieving; evaluating generating; sending” step limitations are all recited as being performed by a computer (at least one processor). The recited processor [computer] is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing generic computer functions.  The claim limitations rely on Mathematical concepts applied to Certain methods of organizing human activity –marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) for Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) to ultimately, “send[ing]…at least one audit report to the employee, and the employees manager” (judicial exception).  The claims do not include any additional details that explain how the report is produced. And merely requires a generic output using the multiple algorithms including the artificial intelligence module without imposing any limits on how the data (report) is output (generating; sending).  In summary as indicated below through Steps 1-2B, the recitation of a computer (one or more processors) to perform the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (processor).  Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.  Examiner also notes that Applicant’s statement of “and determining an audit for software compliance to improve network security… ” is not specifically recited as such in the claims.  There are no specific and detailed limitations supporting the “improve network security” for any recitation of technical improvements to a computer or technology nor is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application.  For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
In the remarks/arguments regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection for Claims 21-32 are moot because Applicant’s amendments necessitated the below new grounds of rejection as being unpatentable over Todd et al. (Todd) (US 2021/0334731) in view of Burns et al. (Burns) (US/11,232,383) and in further view of Clearwater et al. (Clearwater) (US 2021/0390470).  It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.  The Examiner has a duty and responsibility to the public and to Applicant to interpret the claims as broadly as reasonably possible during prosecution. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1 393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).


	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 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims as a whole recite certain groupings characteristic of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea (see “USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance issued January 7, 2019”, citing “Federal Register 50 Vol 84 No 4 Monday January 7 2019”, p.51, 3rd column to p.53 1st column, p.54 further corroborated by USPTO’s “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), Advanced Module PowerPoint Slides” Slide 17) and the October 2019 Update:  Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update”), and updated with the addition of new Examples 47-49 published July 2024 are analyzed in the following step process:

		Step 1: Claims 21-32 are each focused to a statutory category of invention, namely “method; server; non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” sets.
Step 2A:  Prong One: Claims 21-32 recite limitations that set forth the abstract ideas, namely, the claims as a whole recite the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims encompass processing information by:

“determining, by at least one processor, a compliance status score of an employee based on aggregated data, a plurality of metrics associated with the employee and comparing it with a plurality of scored database of employees of the same occupation;
predicting, with at least one artificial intelligence module, the at least one artificial intelligence module structured as a feedforward recurrent neural network model with backpropagation and a cost function, an optimal compliance trajectory having at least one milestone based on, a plurality of compliance protocol standards the determined compliance status score of the employee and the scored database of employees of the same occupation;
establishing, a time interval based on the optimal compliance trajectory;
sending, the at least one milestone and the established time interval to the employee;
retrieving, at the expiration of the time interval, the at least one milestone sent to the employee;
evaluating, the at least one milestone sent to the employee;
generating, based on the evaluation of the at least one milestone, at least one audit report;
sending, the at least one audit report to the employee, and the employee’s manager” 

	The claims as a whole recite certain groupings characteristic of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea (see “USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance issued January 7, 2019”, citing “Federal Register 50 Vol 84 No 4 Monday January 7 2019”, p.51, 3rd column to p.53 1st column, p.54 further corroborated by USPTO’s “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), Advanced Module PowerPoint Slides” Slide 17) and the October 2019 Update:  Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update”) and the October 2019 Update:  Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update”), and updated with the addition of new Examples 47-49 published July 2024. These claims fall under the categories: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (score (ed); metrics); (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).   See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C.  Hence, the claims are ineligible under step 2A prong one.  Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.  The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components. 
	Prong Two:  Claims 21-32: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describe how to generally, “monitor activities performed by employees and reporting progress tracking of the employees to the employees’ manager”.  Independent Claims 1, 12 recite additional elements directed to “processors; media; device”, etc.”  (e.g., see Applicant’s published Specification ¶’s 3, 4, 16, 31-46) and does not take the claims out of methods of organizing human activities groupings characteristic of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea further corroborated by USPTO’s 2019 PEG and the October 2019 Update. Therefore, the claims contain computer components that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.  It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point"). See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of DNA amplification and analysis are not "sufficient" to render claim 1 patent eligible merely because they are physical steps). Conversely, the presence of a non-physical or intangible additional element does not doom the claims, because tangibility is not necessary for eligibility under the Alice/Mayo test. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("that the improvement is not defined by reference to ‘physical’ components does not doom the claims"). See also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016), (holding that a process producing an intangible result (a sequence of synchronized, animated characters) was eligible because it improved an existing technological process).  Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.  The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
Step 2B: (As explained in MPEP § 2106.05), Claims 21-32 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.  The additional elements of “processors; media; device”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology.
Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.  The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery (e.g., see Applicant Specification ¶’s 3, 4, 16, 31-46) regarding using existing computer processors as well as program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored.  “module 103” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit and display data) and/or use computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer.  Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103

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 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 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd et al. (Todd) (US 2021/0334731) in view of Burns et al. (Burns) (US 11,232,383) and in further view of Clearwater et al. (Clearwater) (US 2021/0390470).

With regard to Claims 21, 25, 29, Todd teaches a method/server/non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising:  one or more processors; and at least one non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors configured to perform operations (see at least paragraphs 32-39);

determining, by at least one processor, a compliance status (Using structuring communications in an observation platform, as referred to herein, may refer to the following actions regarding communications between two or more users: disciplining, structuring, controlling, participating, discouraging, encouraging, influencing, nudging, making an example of, permitting, inhibiting, enabling, managing, managing users and/or systems for compliance with policies, measuring what goes on as communication and motion occurs, characterizing, observing, recording, analyzing, correcting, directing; the current state or status of the user (e.g., busy, available, engaged, commanding, conversing, listening, being trained, out-of-range, not logged on, etc.), the role of a user (e.g., manager, associate, register operator, facilities worker, subject matter expert, security personnel, maintenance personnel) score (employee score; performance score) of an employee (A user or users, as referred to herein, may be a person or people such as, sales associates, employees, managers, trainees, trainers, doctors, clinicians, patients, customers, cleaners, service personnel, emergency responders, hospitality personnel, etc.; Algorithms within the computer system attached to the observation platform then combine the data using policy and weighting factors provided by the enterprise or the defaulted to the observation platform system. The output of the algorithm becomes a component of the employee score that is either explicitly displayed or used internally for the computation of a Higher-order statistic that indicates a component of the employee performance score that is explicitly displayed) based on aggregated data (objective and subjective data may be combined to yield a performance score), a plurality of metrics (performance metrics; productivity metrics) associated with the employee and comparing it with a plurality of scored database of employees of the same occupation (Two broad categories of data are collected within the observation platform environment: objective data, and subjective data. Algorithms within the computer system attached to the observation platform then combine the data using policy and weighting factors provided by the enterprise or the defaulted to the observation platform system. The output of the algorithm becomes a component of the employee score that is either explicitly displayed or used internally for the computation of a Higher-order statistic that indicates a component of the employee performance score that is explicitly displayed) (see at least paragraphs 27, 78-82, 179-187);

the at least one artificial intelligence module (The stored enterprise policy 340 in the cloud services and configuration control platform 220 is used to automatically configure parameters in the observation platform of a computer system 120-1 or 120A-1 in an environment, such as environment 100-1, for optimizing the observation platform software along with the application software for most closely meeting the requirements desired by the controlling enterprise. Policy 360, operating on the observation platform, is determined by a combination of input controls into the cloud services and configuration control platform 220 for defining the details of the policy 360, while also using the data and analytics of software module 345 to refine the policy 360 using machine learning techniques or Artificial Intelligence. The updated policy 360 is then deployed from stored enterprise policy 340 to the observation platform computer system 120-1 or 120A-1 via the cloud services and configuration control platform 220) and a cost function (integrating the observation platform with the store computer running the BOPIS process allows the store to make near-real-time decisions regarding how the associates are assigned to tasks. Having the flexibility to adjust task priority quickly and with low effort improves customer satisfaction and reduces operational costs), an optimal compliance trajectory (Using structuring communications in an observation platform, as referred to herein, may refer to the following actions regarding communications between two or more users: disciplining, structuring, controlling, participating, discouraging, encouraging, influencing, nudging, making an example of, permitting, inhibiting, enabling, managing, managing users and/or systems for compliance with policies, measuring what goes on as communication and motion occurs, characterizing, observing, recording, analyzing, correcting, directing) having at least one milestone based on a plurality of compliance protocol standards (the results of the analysis may be used within the collaboration application 201-9 or by the external collaboration application 201-9 for verbally or textually nudging compliance or escalating non-compliance with the task or task schedule), the determined compliance status score of the employee and the scored database of employees of the same occupation (Each task may be tracked against a planned schedule of completion as determined by the cloud-based third-party external collaboration application 329. If a task progress report or completion date falls behind the scheduled date/time, the observation platform may provide a notification of a missed milestone and/or escalate the notification to a higher-level set of users or managers; milestone markers) (see at least paragraphs 78-81, 105, 150-154, 175, TABLE 1);

establishing, a time interval (planned schedule of completion; deadlines) based on the optimal compliance trajectory (the results of the analysis may be used within the collaboration application 201-9 or by the external collaboration application 201-9 for verbally or textually nudging compliance or escalating non-compliance with the task or task schedule) (see at least paragraph 150, 177, 195, TABLE 1);

sending, the at least one milestone and the established time interval to the employee (Each task may be tracked against a planned schedule of completion as determined by the cloud-based third-party external collaboration application 329. If a task progress report or completion date falls behind the scheduled date/time, the observation platform may provide a notification of a missed milestone and/or escalate the notification to a higher-level set of users or managers; milestone markers; deadlines) (see at least paragraphs 177, 195, TABLE 1);

retrieving, at the expiration of the time interval, the at least one milestone completed by the employee (Each task may be tracked against a planned schedule of completion as determined by the cloud-based third-party external collaboration application 329. If a task progress report or completion date falls behind the scheduled date/time, the observation platform may provide a notification of a missed milestone and/or escalate the notification to a higher-level set of users or managers; milestone markers; deadlines) (see at least paragraphs 71, 150, 177, 195, TABLE 1);

evaluating (the action request is analyzed with respect to status in the observation platform, where the status is one of user status in the observation platform and device status in the observation platform. For example, in some embodiments, the action request is analyzed by the computer associated with the observation platform (e.g., computer system 120-1 in FIG. 2A) and evaluated against the user and/or device status for further determination of how to structure the communication), and the at least one milestone sent to the employee (Each task may be tracked against a planned schedule of completion as determined by the cloud-based third-party external collaboration application 329. If a task progress report or completion date falls behind the scheduled date/time, the observation platform may provide a notification of a missed milestone and/or escalate the notification to a higher-level set of users or managers; milestone markers; deadlines) (see at least paragraphs 112, 150);

generating, based on the evaluation of the at least one milestone, at least one report (Each task may be tracked against a planned schedule of completion as determined by the cloud-based third-party external collaboration application 329. If a task progress report or completion date falls behind the scheduled date/time, the observation platform may provide a notification of a missed milestone and/or escalate the notification to a higher-level set of users or managers; tributing actions to users; sending audible messages to users or managers; deriving and updating visual or printed reports; revising or tuning application configurations; and/or adjusting enterprise policy 340, or local observation platform policy 360, for how to improve the operation and response of the collaboration integration application) (see at least paragraphs 114, 150, 154);

sending, the at least one report to the employee, and the employee’s manager (If a task progress report or completion date falls behind the scheduled date/time, the observation platform may provide a notification of a missed milestone and/or escalate the notification to a higher-level set of users or managers; tributing actions to users; sending audible messages to users or managers; deriving and updating visual or printed reports; revising or tuning application configurations; and/or adjusting enterprise policy 340, or local observation platform policy 360, for how to improve the operation and response of the collaboration integration application) (see at least paragraphs 114, 150, 154);

Todd does not specifically teach predicting, with at least one artificial intelligence module; structured as a feedforward recurrent neural network model with backpropagation.  Burns teaches predicting (the AI and ML algorithms are configured to generate and adapt a pricing model for a TO. The present invention collects the Market 360 data, price factors data, the customer input data, and other TCF input data. The AI and ML algorithms are configured to track and model a recommended pricing model based on the input data for a TO. Every piece of input data is time-stamped and integral to the TCF Process. The AI and ML algorithms constantly receive the time-stamped data, and are configured to analyze historical time-stamped data to predict trends and provide recommendations for a TO), with at least one artificial intelligence module (artificial intelligence engine; a data repository wherein the TILLER data and analysis, Market 360 data, innovation discovery data and all other TCF data are stored. The present invention is configured for automated algorithms and notifications. The automated algorithms include machine learning and neural networks) structured as a feedforward recurrent neural network model with backpropagation (The machine learning algorithms continuously evolves the type of data collected and the analysis to improve the consistency and reliability of TCF results. Furthermore, the system uses stored repository data to provide estimates for a TO. The data repository is accessible via the cloud-based network for the remote devices. The present system is configured to use the automated algorithms in combination with the date stored in the data repository to provide predictive analytics on the probability or risk and success for a TO)) in analogous art of providing employee training for the purposes of: “to use the automated algorithms in combination with the date stored in the data repository to provide predictive analytics on the probability or risk and success for a TO” (see at least col. 9, line 59-col. 10, line 43; col. 14, lines 2-39; col. 41, lines 20-32; col. 68, lines 49-63; col 79, lines 46-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the systems and methods for transformative corporate formation and automated technology assessment as taught by Burns in the system of Todd, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.

Todd in view of Burns do not teach audit.  Clearwater teaches audit (privacy audits) in analogous art of training customization for the purposes of: “A Main Privacy Compliance Module is operable to allow a user to initiate the creation of a privacy campaign (i.e., a business function, system, product, technology, process, project, engagement, initiative, campaign, etc., that may utilize personal data collected from one or more persons or entities). The personal data may contain PII that may be sensitive personal data. The user can input information such as the name and description of the campaign. The user may also select whether he/she will take ownership of the campaign (i.e., be responsible for providing the information needed to create the campaign and oversee the conducting of privacy audits related to the campaign), or assign the campaign to one or more other persons; After the Risk Assessment Module has determined a Risk Level for a campaign, a Privacy Audit Module may be operable to use the Risk Level to determine an audit schedule for the campaign. The audit schedule may be editable, and the Privacy Audit Module also facilitates the privacy audit process by sending alerts when a privacy audit is impending, or sending alerts when a privacy audit is overdue” (see at least paragraphs 195-197). 
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the data processing systems and methods for customizing privacy training as taught by Clearwater in the systems/methods of Todd in view of Burns, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
	
	

With regard to Claim 23, Todd teaches the optimal compliance trajectory further comprising information related to scheduling the at least one milestone (see at least paragraphs 59, 78-82, 150).


With regard to Claims 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, Clearwater teaches:
the aggregated data and the plurality of metrics comprising employee information related to education, relevant experience, a job function specific exam, relevant certifications, scores of assignments (Such an entity may also have many employees and/or vendors that may also be spread across many jurisdictions with varying requirements that may handle such data. Furthermore, each employee or vendor may have different responsibilities, experience, access permissions, certifications, education, operational roles, data asset access, etc.; a data map may include or indicate specific trainee information such as one or more of: (1) a trainee's position, title, division, organization, group, subgroup, etc.; (2) a trainee's position within an organizational structure or hierarchy; (3) one or more of a trainee's superiors, subordinates, coworkers, team members, etc.; (4) a trainee's geographical location; (5) a legal and/or jurisdictional framework within which the trainee is to operate; (6) a trainee's language(s); (7) a trainee's previous training and/or educational experience; (8) one or more vendors for which the trainee works or is otherwise associated with; (9) one or more vendors for which the trainee is responsible for procuring or is otherwise associated with; and/or (10) any other suitable information related to the trainee that may be used in customizing training for the trainee) (see at least paragraphs 559, 560, 888-892);

the at least one milestone (wherein the user context comprises at least one user factor selected from a group consisting of: (i) an amount of time the user takes to provide the one or more system inputs, (ii) a deadline associated with providing the one or more system inputs, (iii) a location of the user as the user provides the one or more system inputs; and (iv) one or more electronic activities associated with an electronic device on which the user is providing the one or more system inputs) comprising at least one cybersecurity compliance framework (these exemplary screen displays may be encountered by a user associated with an entity who may be operating the disclosed system to obtain privacy-related training material and/or security-related training material that may assist the user in understanding how to interact with a particular vendor. In another example, these exemplary screen displays may be encountered by a user associated with a vendor who may be operating the disclosed system to obtain privacy-related training material and/or security-related training material provided by an entity with which the vendor interacts; cybersecurity; customize the training to include images, terms, and/or expressions associated with one or more particular branding efforts (e.g., include the trainee's company logo in training images, include the vendor's brand in images in training material generated for a trainee associated with a vendor, include the motto/logo of an internal organization or security program) (see at least paragraphs 15, 688, 693, 888-892, 899) in analogous art of training customization for the purposes of: “to determine information associated with a trainee and/or associated training by interfacing with one or more systems having human resources and/or organizational information. In a particular example, the system may be configured to determine information associated with a trainee and/or associated training by accessing one or more data maps, for example, associated with the organization operating a learning management system and/or employing the trainee. Such data maps may include, or provide access to, human resources information, organizational information, vendor information, data asset information, legal/regulatory information, jurisdictional/geographical information, any other types of information that may be used to customize training, and/or access information for one or more sources of such information” (see at least paragraphs 15, 688, 693, 888-892, 899). 
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the data processing systems and methods for customizing privacy training as taught by Clearwater in the systems/methods of Todd in view of Burns, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
 
  
Conclusion
	
		
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached on (571) 270-5396. 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.

THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623



/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624