IP Library Granted Patent US 12,223,469
Granted Patent B2
US 12,223,469 · App. 17/471,944 · Granted Feb 11, 2025

Systems and methods for project accountability services

Inventors: James M. Dzierzanowski (Gilbert, AZ); Agasthya P. Narendranathan (San Ramon, CA)
Assignee: NEUROSYMBOLIC AI-IP, LLC
G06Q10/103G06F16/2365G06F21/31G06F40/30G06Q10/0635G06Q10/06395G06Q10/101G06Q10/105G06Q30/018H04L9/0861H04L9/3247
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,223,469
App. No.
17/471,944
Granted
Feb 11, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

A system for project accountability services comprises a processor and a tangible, non-transitory memory configured to communicate with the processor, the tangible, non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising receiving a user validation data, validation the user based on the user validation data to generate a validated user, receiving a request for service from the validated user, and providing, in response to the request for service, a project assessment and requirement accountability service comprising a knowledge catalog, an assessment process module, an accountability process module, an attestation process module, an evidence record, a project accountability schema, and a cryptographic key manager.

Claims (107)

1. A computer-based system, comprising:

at least one processor; and

at least one tangible, non-transitory memory configured to communicate with the at least one processor, the at least one tangible, non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:

receiving, by the at least one processor, one or more packets comprising code implementing a predictive algorithm;

generating, by the at least one processor, a knowledge catalog based on one or more natural language documents comprising requirements for the code implementing the predictive algorithm, wherein the knowledge catalog comprises one or more executable software processes;

forming, by the at least one processor, an Ontology Taxonomy with Symbolic Reasoning (OTSR) structure using the knowledge catalog, wherein the OTSR structure comprises a graph database organized in a hierarchy generated from the knowledge catalogue;

comparing, by the at least one processor, the code implementing the predictive algorithm with the OTSR structure;

linking, by the at least one processor and based on the comparison, at least one portion of the code implementing the predictive algorithm with at least one portion of the OTSR structure;

generating, by the at least one processor, indications of fulfilled requirements for the code implementing the predictive algorithm, and unfulfilled requirements for the code implementing the predictive algorithm, wherein the fulfilled requirements and the unfulfilled requirements are specified in the one or more natural language documents; and

inserting, by the at least one processor, one or more metadata tags into the code implementing the predictive algorithm, wherein each metadata tag of the one or more metadata tags corresponds with a respective fulfilled requirement for the code implementing the predictive algorithm.

2. The system of claim 1 , wherein the operations further comprise:

verifying, by the at least one processor and via an active directory, a project member status;

calculating, by the at least one processor and via a cryptographic key manager, a digital signature including a private asymmetric key based on the project member status;

receiving, by the at least one processor, a request to preserve a project;

initiating, by the at least one processor, an attestation process; and

generating, by the at least one processor, a first evidence block and a second evidence block associated with an evidence record.

3. The system of claim 2 , wherein the operations further comprise:

capturing, by the at least one processor and via a project schema, a project member information comprising at least one of a name, a title, a role, an employee status, an organization, an email address, a phone number, a supervisor name, or a contribution;

capturing, by the at least one processor and via the first evidence block, at least one of a design criteria, a development document, a design document, a development assumption, a risk assessment document, an optimization criteria, a model parameter, a decision support method, a model objective function, an influence and relevance diagram, or a first user defined custom field; and

capturing, by the at least one processor and via the second evidence block, at least one of a code base, a model snapshot, a production snapshot, a training datum, a datum associated with a quality assurance process, a test datum, a datum associated with a verification and validation process, a data availability, a data definition, or a second user defined custom field.

4. The system of claim 3 , wherein the operations further comprise:

receiving, by the at least one processor and from a user, the code implementing the predictive algorithm and the one or more natural language documents comprising the requirements for the code implementing the predictive algorithm;

performing, by the at least one processor, a Merkle root calculation of the project member information, the first evidence block, and the second evidence block;

calling, by the at least one processor, a secure timestamp agent to generate a secure timestamp;

hashing, by the at least one processor, the secure timestamp with the project member information to generate a project member hash record;

signing, by the at least one processor, the project member hash record with the private asymmetric key to generate an attested project member evidence record based on the Merkle root calculation;

recalling, by the at least one processor, a stored Merkle root calculation for the attested project member evidence record;

comparing, by the at least one processor, the Merkle root calculation with the stored Merkle root calculation to determine a match;

combining, by the at least one processor, a plurality of attested project member evidence records;

signing, by the at least one processor, the plurality of attested project member evidence records with a system key to generate the evidence record; and

storing, by the at least one processor, the evidence record via an immutable database.

5. The system of claim 1 , wherein each higher level node in the graph database contains data describing a knowledge-based ontology in the knowledge catalog and each lower level node underneath the higher level node in the graph database contains data describing a taxonomy of the knowledge-based ontology.

6. The system of claim 1 , wherein the operations further comprise one or more of:

tracking progress towards completion of requirements for the code implementing the predictive algorithm using the one or more metadata tags; and

generating a report comprising the at least one (a) a summary of the comparing of the code implementing the predictive algorithm and the OTSR structure or (b) the indications of the unfulfilled requirements for the code implementing the predictive algorithm.

7. The system of claim 1 , wherein the operations further comprise:

receiving, by the at least one processor, one or more updates to the code implementing the predictive algorithm; and

updating, changing, or removing, by the at least one processor, at least one of the one or more metadata tags in the code implementing the predictive algorithm, in response to the receiving the one or more updates.

8. A method comprising:

receiving, by a computer-based system, one or more packets comprising code implementing a predictive algorithm;

generating, by the computer-based system, a knowledge catalog based on one or more natural language documents comprising requirements for the code implementing the predictive algorithm, wherein the knowledge catalog comprises one or more executable software processes;

forming, by the computer-based system, an Ontology Taxonomy with Symbolic Reasoning (OTSR) structure using the knowledge catalog, wherein the OTSR structure comprises a graph database organized in a hierarchy generated from the knowledge catalogue;

comparing, by the computer-based system, the code implementing the predictive algorithm with the OTSR structure;

linking, by the computer-based system and based on the comparison, at least one portion of the code implementing the predictive algorithm with at least one portion of the OTSR structure;

generating, by the computer based system, indications of fulfilled requirements for the code implementing the predictive algorithm, and unfulfilled requirements for the code implementing the predictive algorithm, wherein the fulfilled requirements and the unfulfilled requirements are specified in the one or more natural language documents; and

inserting, by the computer based system, one or more metadata tags into the code implementing the predictive algorithm, wherein each metadata tag of the one or more metadata tags corresponds with a respective fulfilled requirement for the code implementing the predictive algorithm.

9. The method of claim 8 , further comprising:

verifying, by the computer-based system and via an active directory, a project member status;

calculating, by the computer-based system and via a cryptographic key manager, a digital signature including a private asymmetric key based on the project member status;

receiving, by the computer-based system, a request to preserve a project;

initiating, by the computer-based system, an attestation process; and

generating, by the computer-based system, a first evidence block and a second evidence block associated with an evidence record.

10. The method of claim 9 , further comprising:

capturing, by the computer-based system and via a project schema, a project member information comprising at least one of a name, a title, a role, an employee status, an organization, an email address, a phone number, a supervisor name, and a contribution;

capturing, by the computer-based system and via the first evidence block, at least one of a design criteria, a development document, a design document, a development assumption, a risk assessment document, an optimization criteria, a model parameter, a decision support method, a model objective function, an influence and relevance diagram, or a first user defined custom field; and

capturing, by the computer-based system and via the second evidence block, at least one of a code base, a model snapshot, a production snapshot, a training datum, a datum associated with a quality assurance process, a test datum, a datum associated with a verification and validation process, a data availability, a data definition, or a second user defined custom field.

11. The method of claim 10 , further comprising:

receiving, by the computer-based system and from a user, the code implementing the predictive algorithm and the one or more natural language documents comprising the requirements for the code implementing the predictive algorithm;

performing, by the computer-based system, a Merkle root calculation of the project member information, the first evidence block, and the second evidence block;

calling, by the computer-based system, a secure timestamp agent to generate a secure timestamp;

hashing, by the computer-based system, the secure timestamp with the project member information to generate a project member hash record;

signing, by the computer-based system, the project member hash record with the private asymmetric key to generate an attested project member evidence record based on the Merkle root calculation;

recalling, by the computer-based system, a stored Merkle root calculation for the attested project member evidence record;

comparing, by the computer-based system, the Merkle root calculation with the stored Merkle root calculation to determine a match;

combining, by the computer-based system, a plurality of attested project member evidence records;

signing, by the computer-based system, the plurality of attested project member evidence records with a system key to generate the evidence record; and

storing, by the computer-based system, the evidence record via an immutable database.

12. The method of claim 8 , wherein each higher level node in the graph database contains data describing a knowledge-based ontology in the knowledge catalog and each lower level node underneath the higher level node in the graph database contains data describing a taxonomy of the knowledge-based ontology.

13. The method of claim 8 , a further comprising one or more of:

tracking progress towards completion of requirements for the code implementing the predictive algorithm using the one or more metadata tags; and

generating a report comprising the at least one (a) a summary of the comparing of the code implementing the predictive algorithm and the OTSR structure or (b) the indications of the unfulfilled requirements for the code implementing the predictive algorithm.

14. The method of claim 8 , further comprising:

receiving, by the computer based system, one or more updates to the code implementing the predictive algorithm; and

updating, changing, or removing, by the computer based system, at least one of the one or more metadata tags in the code implementing the predictive algorithm, in response to the receiving the one or more updates.

15. An article of manufacture including at least one non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:

receiving, by the at least one processor, one or more packets comprising code implementing a predictive algorithm;

generating, by the at least one processor, a knowledge catalog based on one or more natural language documents comprising requirements for the code implementing the predictive algorithm, wherein the knowledge catalog comprises one or more executable software processes;

forming, by the at least one processor, an Ontology Taxonomy with Symbolic Reasoning (OTSR) structure using the knowledge catalog, wherein the OTSR structure comprises a graph database organized in a hierarchy generated from the knowledge catalogue;

comparing, by the at least one processor, the code implementing the predictive algorithm with the OTSR structure;

linking, by the at least one processor and based on the comparison, at least one portion of the code implementing the predictive algorithm with at least one portion of the OTSR structure;

generating, by the at least one processor, indications of fulfilled requirements for the code implementing the predictive algorithm, and unfulfilled requirements for the code implementing the predictive algorithm, wherein the fulfilled requirements and the unfulfilled requirements are specified in the one or more natural language documents; and

inserting, by the at least one processor, one or more metadata tags into the code implementing the predictive algorithm, wherein each metadata tag of the one or more metadata tags corresponds with a respective fulfilled requirement for the code implementing the predictive algorithm.

16. The article of manufacture of claim 15 , wherein the operations further comprise:

verifying, by the at least one processor and via an active directory, a project member status;

calculating, by the at least one processor and via a cryptographic key manager, a digital signature including a private asymmetric key based on the project member status;

receiving, by the at least one processor, a request to preserve a project;

initiating, by the at least one processor, an attestation process; and

generating, by the at least one processor, a first evidence block and a second evidence block associated with an evidence record.

17. The article of manufacture of claim 16 , wherein the operations further comprise:

capturing, by the at least one processor and via a project schema, a project member information comprising at least one of a name, a title, a role, an employee status, an organization, an email address, a phone number, a supervisor name, and a contribution;

capturing, by the at least one processor and via the first evidence block, at least one of a design criteria, a development document, a design document, a development assumption, a risk assessment document, an optimization criteria, a model parameter, a decision support method, a model objective function, an influence and relevance diagram, or a first user defined custom field; and

capturing, by the at least one processor and via the second evidence block, at least one of a code base, a model snapshot, a production snapshot, a training data, a datum associated with a quality assurance process, a test datum, a datum associated with a verification and validation process, a data availability, a data definition, or a second user defined custom field.

18. The article of manufacture of claim 17 , wherein the operations further comprise:

receiving, by the at least one processor and from a user, the code implementing the predictive algorithm and the one or more natural language documents comprising the requirements for the code implementing the predictive algorithm;

performing, by the at least one processor, a Merkle root calculation of the project member information, the first evidence block, and the second evidence block;

calling, by the at least one processor, a secure timestamp agent to generate a secure timestamp;

hashing, by the at least one processor, the secure timestamp with the project member information to generate a project member hash record;

signing, by the at least one processor, the project member hash record with the private asymmetric key to generate an attested project member evidence record based on the Merkle root calculation;

recalling, by the at least one processor, a stored Merkle root calculation for the attested project member evidence record;

comparing, by the at least one processor, the Merkle root calculation with the stored Merkle root calculation to determine a match;

combining, by the at least one processor, a plurality of attested project member evidence records;

signing, by the at least one processor, the plurality of attested project member evidence records with a system key to generate the evidence record; and

storing, by the at least one processor, the evidence record via an immutable database.

19. The article of manufacture of claim 15 , wherein each higher level node in the graph database contains data describing a knowledge-based ontology in the knowledge catalog and each lower level node underneath the higher level node in the graph database contains data describing a taxonomy of the knowledge-based ontology.

20. The article of manufacture of claim 15 , wherein the operations further comprise:

receiving, by the at least one processor, one or more updates to the code implementing the predictive algorithm; and

updating, changing, or removing, by the at least one processor, at least one of the one or more metadata tags in the code implementing the predictive algorithm, in response to the receiving the one or more updates.

Assignments (2)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded May 19, 2023
From: DZIERZANOWSKI, JAMES M.; NARENDRANATHAN, AGASTHYA P.
To: MATRIXED IP HOLDINGS, LLC
Reel/Frame 063700/0764 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded May 19, 2023
From: MATRIXED IP HOLDINGS, LLC
To: NEUROSYMBOLIC AI-IP, LLC
Reel/Frame 063708/0510 →
Continuity (2)
Provisional Application 63206024 · Jan 25, 2021
Related Publication 20220237565A1 · Jul 28, 2022
References Cited (57)
US 10127378B2 · Toth · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 10250583B2 · Caldera et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10311250B2 · Khi et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10445317B2 · Sanchez et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10445656B2 · Sanchez et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10503427B2 · Botes et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10581615B2 · Xie et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 10592873B2 · Russinovich · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 10614239B2 · de Kadt et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 10621164B1 · Kain · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 10623443B2 · Lang et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 10628491B2 · Saxena et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 10719766B2 · Lindsley · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 10726346B2 · Saxena et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 10756906B2 · Toth · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20070276759A1 · Ginter · 2007 [cited by examiner]
US 20080162498A1 · Omoigui · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20090327144A1 · Hatter · 2009 [cited by examiner]
US 20120290510A1 · Faddoul et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20160255082A1 · Rathod · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20160306984A1 · Amarendran et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160371476A1 · Turgeman · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20170132636A1 · Caldera · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170270527A1 · Rampton · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180005186A1 · Hunn · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180094953A1 · Colson et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180114159A1 · Dubey · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180129957A1 · Saxena et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180285879A1 · Gadnis et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180288073A1 · Hopper · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180307859A1 · LaFever et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180322161A1 · Horii et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180336286A1 · Shah · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190122149A1 · Caldera et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190164241A1 · Bässler et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190222567A1 · Caldera et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190229914A1 · Patel et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190281465A1 · Moshir et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190312734A1 · Wentz · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20190387000A1 · Zavesky et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20200036515A1 · Chari et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200084170A1 · Mutha et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200143277A1 · Levine et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20210157903A1 · Bursell · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20210192651A1 · Groth · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20210211472A1 · Murray · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20210367963A1 · Murray · 2021 [cited by examiner]
WO 2017222738 · 2017 [cited by applicant]
WO 2018201009 · 2018 [cited by applicant]
WO 2019246568 · 2019 [cited by applicant]
WO 2022159209 · 2022 [cited by applicant]
Yang, Hui, et al. “Analysing anaphoric ambiguity in natural language requirements.” Requirements engineering 16 (2011): 163-189. (Year: 2011). [cited by examiner]
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Mar. 2, 2022 in Application No. PCT/US2021/063515. [cited by applicant]
Magagna, et al., “Data provenance and tracing for environmental sciences: system design”, ENVRI, D8.5, A document of ENVRIplus project—www.envri.eu/envriplus, Work Package 8, Apr. 30, 2018, pp. 1-116. [cited by applicant]
H. Al-Khateeb et al., “Blockchain for Modern Digital Forensics: The Chain-of-Custody as a Distributed Ledger”, WCRI, University of Wolverhampton, UK, Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications, https:/… [cited by applicant]
Truong, et al., “GDPR-Compliant Personal Data Management: A Blockchain-based Solution”, IEEE Transaction on Information Forensics and Security, arXiv:1904.03038v2 [cs.CR], Oct. 3, 2019, pp. 1-16. [cited by applicant]
IPO; International Preliminary Report on Patentability dated May 5, 2023 in Application No. PCT/US2021/063515. [cited by applicant]
Cited By (2)
US 12,694,104 US 12,739,107