Patent Application 18808468 - AUTOMATED SOLUTION MANAGER - Rejection
Patent Application 18808468 - AUTOMATED SOLUTION MANAGER
Title: AUTOMATED SOLUTION MANAGER
Application Information
- Invention Title: AUTOMATED SOLUTION MANAGER
- Application Number: 18808468
- Submission Date: 2025-05-20T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2024-08-19T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2024-08-19T00:00:00.000Z
- Examiner Employee Number: 81104
- Art Unit: 2161
- Tech Center: 2100
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 0
- 103 Rejections: 2
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
Office Action Text
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 1-20 are present for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/12/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
It should be noted that the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) has incorporated the 2019 Revised Guidance and subsequent updates at § 2106. Under the 2019 Revised Guidance “Step 2A” the office looks to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas; and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, the examiner then (pursuant to the 2019 Revised Guidance “Step 2B”) evaluates the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1, 7 and 10:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of providing a solution database defining a plurality of distinct software-implemented solutions; providing a data model being configured in a hierarchical tree structure; generating a graphical user interface producing a dynamic sequence of questions as a function of both the data model and answers to questions received from the user; causing an automated report builder to produce an output report after receiving answers to the sequence of questions.
The providing a solution database defining a plurality of distinct software-implemented solutions limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “computer” or “computer memory” in the claim. That is, other than reciting “computer” or “computer memory” in the claim, nothing in the claim precludes the providing a solution database defining a plurality of distinct software-implemented solutions step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, the claim encompasses the user manually provide a solution database defining a plurality of distinct software-implemented solutions. This limitation is a mental process.
The providing a data model being configured in a hierarchical tree structure limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “computer” or “computer memory” in the claim. That is, other than reciting
“computer” or “computer memory” in the claim, nothing in the claim precludes the providing a data model being configured in a hierarchical tree structure step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, the claim encompasses the user manually provide a data model being configured in a hierarchical tree structure. This limitation is a mental process.
The generating a graphical user interface producing a dynamic sequence of questions as a function of both the data model and answers to questions received from the user limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “computer” or “computer memory” in the claim. That is, other than reciting
“computer” or “computer memory” in the claim, nothing in the claim precludes the generating a graphical user interface producing a dynamic sequence of questions as a function of both the data model and answers to questions received from the user step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, the claim encompasses the user manually generate a graphical user interface producing a dynamic sequence of questions as a function of both the data model and answers to questions received from the user. This limitation is a mental process.
The causing an automated report builder to produce an output report after receiving answers to the sequence of questions limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “computer” or “computer memory” in the claim. That is, other than reciting
“computer” or “computer memory” in the claim, nothing in the claim precludes the causing an automated report builder to produce an output report after receiving answers to the sequence of questions step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, the claim encompasses the user manually cause an automated report builder to produce an output report after receiving answers to the sequence of questions. This limitation is a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites no specific additional elements except that the claim recites a “computer” or “computer memory” in the claim.
This generic “computer” or “computer memory” recitation is no more than mere instructions to apply to exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this recitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the recitation of “computer” or “computer memory” in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic “computer”.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic “computer” cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims further recite the steps of adding more conditions to the ‘rule’ in order to complete the task under certain rules without amounting to a significantly more than the abstract idea as they do not provide steps that confine the claims toward a particular field of application or apply judicial exception to a particular field.
In view of the above reasons, claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 101 statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10, 12-13, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2005/0060662 (hereinafter Soares) in view of non-patent literature “How to design a decision tree correctly?”, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/67600399/how-to-design-a-decision-tree-correctly, 05/20/2021, 2 pages (hereinafter Mendez).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 16, Soares discloses a computer-implemented method of managing a plurality of software solutions, each software solution useful for constructing or operating a large-scale industrial facility, the method comprising:
providing, to a computer, a solution database defining a plurality of distinct software-implemented solutions; providing, to the computer, a data model, the model being configured in a hierarchical tree structure ending with a plurality of specific solutions from the plurality of distinct software-implemented solutions, the data model configured to cooperate with the solution database to facilitate changes to the hierarchical tree structure in response to user input ([0023]; “…(3) if a user requests assistance, displaying questions in an order dictated by a decision tree defined in advance by an IT professional, and traversing the decision tree based upon answers provided by the user via computer input devices until one or more recommendations for service actions have been encountered; (4) gathering all recommended service actions and filling in fields in a data structure based upon answers given by said user…”);
generating, on a display device in communication with the computer, a graphical user interface producing a dynamic sequence of questions as a function of both the data model and answers to questions received from the user, said answers comprising user input, the sequence of questions configured to solicit from the user information about challenges relating to constructing or operating said large-scale industrial facility, the sequence of questions comprising: (1) an initial question configured to solicit a first answer from the user; and
(2) a plurality of sequential subsequent questions, and each subsequent question following a predecessor question and determined by the user's answer to its predecessor question, the plurality of sequential subsequent questions ending with a final question ([0003, 0067, 0072 and 0074]; “If the user chooses to create a service advisor, a loop is entered where the user specifies a series of questions in three or more categories and specifies branching conditions based upon anticipated answers and specifies recommended IT services so as to define the decision tree discussed elsewhere herein…”; “…The service advisors displayed in the IT services catalogue have been predefined as decision trees by an IT professional during the process of creating the IT service catalog. Each leaf on the decision tree is a specific service action recommendation…”); and
causing an automated report builder to produce an output report after receiving answers to the sequence of questions, the automated report builder being configured to produce the output report as a function of the answers, the output report including a set of specified solutions, each such specified solution selected from the plurality of distinct software-implemented solutions as a function of the answers ([0095-0098, 0110-0111 and 0125]; “repeating the process of displaying questions and receiving responses and validating said responses and vectoring processing to the next question(s) based upon the response9s) to the previous question(s) until one or more recommendations for IT service actions are encountered in said decision tree…”; and “In step 171, an optional service lifecycle report is generated from the stored cost and time to complete data of each step of the fulfillment workflow….Only a single report for all the fulfillment workflows in the hierarchy is generated. The service lifecycle report contains the results of comparison between the projected cost and schedule for each step in a fulfillment workflow, as recorded in the data structures…”).
While Soares discloses the feature of utilizing a decision tree as shown above, Soares does not explicitly disclose the claim limitation of “the model being configured in a hierarchical tree structure from more general nodes and ending with a plurality of specific solutions” and “each subsequent question associated with a node in the hierarchical tree structure.” However, such feature is well known in the art as disclosed by Mendez (page. 1, figure. 1) and it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Mendez in the system of Soares in view of the desire to enhance the solution searching system by utilizing the specific hierarchical structure configuration resulting in improving the user assisting process.
Additionally, Soares in view of Mendez discloses a the system comprising a computer memory ([0115]).
Regarding claim 2, while Soares in view Mendez discloses the computer-implemented method wherein causing an automated report builder to produce an output report comprises automatically causing the automated report builder to produce the report after completing the sequence of questions (Soares: [0110-0112]).
Regarding claim 3, Soares in view of Mendez discloses the computer-implemented method wherein causing an automated report builder to produce an output report occurs in response to receipt by the computer of a request to produce the output report (Soares: [0110-0112]).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18, Soares in view Mendez discloses the computer-implemented method wherein:
each question is uniquely associated with a corresponding node from the plurality of nodes in the hierarchical tree structure; and the graphical user interface includes, for each question, a set of prescribed selectable fields with prescribed selectable indicia, the selectable indicia being derived from a node corresponding to said question (Soares: [0067]) and (Mendez: page. 1, figure 1). Therefore, the limitations of claims 5, 12 and 18 are rejected in the analysis of claims 1, 10 or 16, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19, Soares in view Mendez do not explicitly disclose the computer-implemented method wherein the graphical user interface automatically displays previously un-displayed sequential subsequent question after receiving an answer to a displayed predecessor question. However, the specific displaying scheme utilized for the user interface would have been an obvious design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of particular application and involving only routine skill in the art.
9. Claims 4, 7-9, 11 14-15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soares in view of Mendez, and further in view of U.S. 10/467,261 (hereinafter Doyle).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 17, Soares in view Mendez discloses the computer-implemented method wherein the solution database is the plurality of distinct software-implemented solutions (Soares: [0023]). The references do not explicitly disclose the features of wherein the database is indexed as a function of tools and solutions within the tools, each tool having tool information stored in the solution database, each tool having one or more solutions. However, such features are well known in the art as disclosed by Doyle (col. 14, lns. 64-col. 15, lns. 25; the hierarchy generator 108C may also function in tandem with a database system to index hierarchical data structures with indices (e.g., unique keys) to facilitate and improves access, manipulation, retrieval, and storage of various pieces of data in the hierarchical data structures”) and it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Doyle in the modified system of Soares in view of the desire to enhance the solution searching system by utilizing the index hierarchical data structure resulting in improving the user assisting process.
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, Soares in view Mendez discloses the computer-implemented method further providing a computer implemented models (Soares: [0011]), the method configured to: accept a vector defined by the answers to the sequence of questions; and to produce, from said vector, the output report that includes the set of specified solutions (Soares: [0063 and 0095]) and (Mendez: page. 1, figure 1). Therefore, the limitations of claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
The references do not explicitly disclose the method further providing a computer-implemented artificial intelligence. However, Doyle discloses the feature of utilizing one or more machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) modules (col. 23, lns. 19-35) and it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Doyle in the modified system of Soares in view of the desire to enhance the solution searching system by utilizing the artificial intelligence resulting in improving the user assisting process.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Soares in view Mendez and Doyle disclose the computer-implemented method wherein the computer-implemented artificial intelligence comprises a neural network trained with a training set having a plurality of training vectors, each training vector having: a set of training answers to a specified sequence of questions; and an associated set of specified solutions selected from the plurality of distinct software-implemented solutions (Soares: [0095, 0110-0111]), (Mendez: page 1, figure 1) and (Doyle: col. 23, lns. 19-35; col. 28 lns. 64-col. 29, lns. 31). Therefore, the limitations of claims 8 and 15 are rejected in the analysis of claims 7 or 14, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 9, Soares in view Mendez and Doyle disclose the computer-implemented method wherein the computer-implemented artificial intelligence comprises a generative artificial intelligence configured to produce the output report in response to a prompt, the prompt comprising the vector defined by the answers to the sequence of questions. (Soares: [0095, 0111 and 0125]), (Mendez: page 1, figure 1) and (Doyle: col. 23, lns. 19-35; col. 28 lns. 64-col. 29, lns. 31). Therefore, the limitations of claim 9 are rejected in the analysis of claim 7, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA M PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-8192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, APU MOFIZ can be reached at 571-272-4080. 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.
/MONICA M PYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
