DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant's amendment filed on 2 January 2025. Currently Claims 1, 5-12, 16, 21, 23, 25 and 26 are pending and have been examined. Claims 22, and 24 have been canceled and claims 2-4, 13-15, 17-20, 22, and 24 were previously canceled. The Examiner notes that the 101 rejection based on updated guidance has been applied, but it has been determined that the prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Additional Applicant's arguments filed 2 January 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
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, 5-12, 16, 21, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas of increasing employee productivity without significantly more.
STEP 1: Statutory Category
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, claim 12 is directed to a process/method, and claims 1, 5-11, and 21 are directed to a system/machine. Therefore, the claims fall within the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
STEP 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception.
The claims recite abstract ideas. Specifically, the independent claims 1 and 12 recite the following limitations that fall within multiple groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2):
“generation of one of more units of output..”
“receive actual production data indicating the number of units of output produced by said team member during performance of the production activity on an ongoing basis while performance of the production activity is underway”
"automatically generate, on an ongoing basis while performance of the production activity is underway, an expected earnings rate for said team member for a pay period of working time and an evaluated earnings rate for said team member by multiplying the acquired actual production data for a pay period of working time with the earnings data for said team member"
"determine a total amount of pay for the pay period of working time by multiplying the acquired actual production data for the pay period of working time with the earnings data for said team member"
“…receive the total amount of pay for the pay period of working time”
"automatically convert the total amount of pay for the pay period of working time into payment options comprising at least one currency and at least one securitized equity asset"
"determine a first future potential value of the at least one security based on a first anticipated growth rate applied to the total amount of pay over a predetermined period of time and a second future potential value of the at least one currency based on a second anticipated growth rate applied to the total amount of pay over the predetermined period of time"
Abstract Idea Grouping Analysis
Mathematical Concepts:
The identified limitations recite mathematical calculations. Specifically, the limitations require "multiplying the acquired actual production data for a pay period of working time with the earnings data" to generate earnings rates and determine total pay. This is a mathematical calculation that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I. The phrase "multiplying" explicitly recites performing a mathematical operation to calculate earnings values.
Additionally, the limitations recite "determine a first future potential value...based on a first anticipated growth rate applied to the total amount of pay over a predetermined period of time and a second future potential value...based on a second anticipated growth rate." This limitation requires applying mathematical formulas to calculate future values based on growth rates, which constitutes mathematical calculations. These calculations involve mathematical relationships between variables (total pay, growth rates, time period, and future values) expressed in a formula-like manner. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I (mathematical relationships and calculations are abstract ideas).
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity:
The identified limitations also fall within the "fundamental economic principles or practices" and "commercial or legal interactions" sub-groupings of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the claims recite managing worker compensation by tracking production output, calculating earnings, converting payment into different financial instruments (currency, stock, cryptocurrency), and executing financial transactions. These limitations relate to fundamental economic practices of compensation, currency exchange, and financial transactions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.
Mental Processes:
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the identified limitations also cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, and judgment. Specifically, the steps of "generating an expected earnings rate" and "evaluated earnings rate" by multiplying values, "converting" payment into different options, and "determining" future potential values based on growth rates encompass mental processes that could be practically performed in the human mind, with or without pen and paper. A person could observe production data and earnings data, perform multiplication mentally or with pen and paper to calculate earnings rates and total pay, evaluate different payment options, apply growth rates to determine future values, and make judgments about payment methods. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The mere nominal recitation of generic computer components ("processor," "database," "electronic display") does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The mathematical calculations and evaluations recited in the claims are the type of concepts that people have performed mentally in managing compensation and financial decisions for generations, even if modern technology allows them to be performed more quickly.
Because the claims recite limitations that fall within multiple abstract idea groupings (mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes), these limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. See MPEP § 2106.04, subsection II.B. Accordingly, the claims recite judicial exceptions (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
STEP 2A Prong Two: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated Into a Practical Application.
Identification of Additional Elements. The independent claims recite the following additional elements beyond the identified abstract ideas:
"a machine for use in association with performance of the production activity"
"at least one database comprising earnings data and expected production metrics"
"at least one data acquiring device in electronic communication with said machine and configured to automatically receive actual production data"
"at least one processor" / "at least one electronic display"
"a payout module" / "a conversion module"
Receiving actual production data; displaying information on electronic display; receiving user selection; executing electronic transaction
Particular Machine (MPEP § 2106.05(b)):
The claims do not recite use of a particular machine that imposes meaningful limits on the claim. The recited "machine for use in association with performance of the production activity" is claimed at a high level of generality and could encompass any production machine. The "processor," "database," "data acquiring device," "electronic display," "payout module," and "conversion module" are all generic computing components described in functional terms without any specificity as to their structure or operation.
Similarly, the "currency exchange system," "banking system," "brokerage system," and "ATM" in claim 5 are recited generically and do not impose meaningful limits. The "blockchain" recited in claim 6 is likewise described at a high level as merely storing transaction data without any specific technical implementation or improvement to blockchain technology itself. These generic components do not constitute a particular machine that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(b).
Mere Instructions to Apply the Exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on generic computer components. The claims recite generic computing components (processor, memory, database, display, modules) performing generic computing functions (receiving data, processing/calculating data, storing data, displaying results, executing transactions). This is tantamount to adding the words "apply it" with a computer to the judicial exceptions.
The processor is merely instructed to perform the mathematical calculations of the abstract idea. The database is merely instructed to store the inputs for the calculations. The display is merely instructed to output the results. The payout and conversion modules are merely instructed to implement the abstract idea of converting and distributing payment in different forms. None of these elements add anything meaningful beyond generic computer implementation of the abstract business practice. See Alice Corp., ("Nearly every computer will include a 'communications controller' and 'data storage unit' capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.").
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)):
The additional elements of receiving actual production data and displaying information on the electronic display constitute insignificant extra-solution activity. The "receiving" of production data is mere data gathering that is necessary to provide inputs for the abstract idea calculations. The "displaying" of earnings rates, payment options, and future values on the electronic display is mere outputting of the results of applying the abstract idea.
These data gathering and output steps are incidental to the primary process of calculating compensation and converting payment options. They do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea beyond requiring that the data be obtained and the results be communicated—functions that are necessary for any application of the recited judicial exceptions. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Step 2A Prong Two Conclusion
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas beyond generic computer implementation. The claims use generic computing components to automate business practices that have existed for decades: tracking worker output, calculating piece-rate compensation, and offering workers choices in how they receive payment. Accordingly, the claims are directed to abstract ideas (Step 2A: YES).
STEP 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using generic computer components, and insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering and output). The same analysis applies in Step 2B these types of limitations cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f), (g), and (h).
Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity Analysis
The additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field. Specifically:
Receiving data from production equipment and sensors - The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec Corp. v. Verizon Commc'ns Inc. (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc.) (sending messages over a network).
Storing information in databases - The courts have recognized storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), citing Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc; OIP Techs.
Performing calculations with a processor - The courts have recognized performing repetitive calculations as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), citing Parker v. Flook, (recomputing or readjusting values); Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada ("The computer required by some of Bancorp's claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.").
Displaying results on a screen/graphical user interface - Displaying information on a graphical user interface is a conventional output function that does not amount to significantly more. Generic display of information, even if updated in real-time, is a well-understood use of computers and does not provide an inventive concept.
Receiving user input/selections - Receiving user input through conventional input mechanisms is a well-understood, routine function of computers.
Executing electronic financial transactions - Electronic recordkeeping and transaction processing are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), citing Alice Corp., (creating and maintaining accounts); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Step 2B Conclusion
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional computer activities that do not transform the abstract ideas into patent-eligible applications. Even when combined, these generic computer components performing conventional functions do not provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent Claim Analysis
The dependent claims do not add limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or provide an inventive concept:
Claims 5-7: These claims add conventional financial infrastructure elements (currency exchange system, banking system, brokerage system, ATM) and specify particular payment options (cash, electronic banking transfer, alternative currency, stock, cryptocurrency), and storage using blockchain technology. These limitations merely further specify the types of well-understood financial systems and payment mechanisms used to implement the abstract idea of converting and distributing compensation. They do not add any technological innovation or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Blockchain, as recited generically for storing transaction data, is merely using existing database technology and does not reflect any improvement to blockchain technology itself. These limitations constitute insignificant extra-solution activity and do not provide significantly more.
Claim 8: This claim adds the option to split payment between multiple options. This merely further specifies the abstract idea of offering flexible payment choices and does not add any meaningful technical limitation. Splitting a payment among multiple recipients or forms is a conventional financial practice that does not transform the abstract idea into something significantly more.
Claim 9: This claim specifies that the expected earnings rate is determined by multiplying the expected production metric with earnings data. This merely further defines the mathematical calculation already identified as an abstract idea and does not provide an inventive concept.
Claim 10: This claim specifies that the electronic display is located at the machine. This is a mere field of use limitation that specifies where the display is positioned but does not impose any meaningful technical constraint or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 11: This claim extends the system to multiple team members and adds ranking functionality. Ranking workers based on performance metrics is part of the abstract idea of managing worker engagement and does not add technological innovation. Performing the same calculations for multiple workers and generating rankings are mathematical operations and methods of organizing human activity (managing worker performance) that do not transform the claims into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claim 16: This claim adds the step of generating a new block for a blockchain upon completion of transactions. As discussed above with respect to claim 6, generic use of blockchain for recordkeeping does not provide an inventive concept. This limitation merely specifies using well-understood blockchain technology in its conventional manner to record transactions.
Claim 21 and 23: This claim specifies that the pay period consists of a shift. This merely defines the time period over which calculations are performed and does not add any technological improvement or meaningful limitation beyond the abstract idea.
Claim 26: This claim adds displaying an option to split payment and receiving user selection of a subset of payment options. As discussed with respect to claim 8, splitting payment is a conventional financial practice. Displaying this option and receiving the selection are additional insignificant extra-solution activity (data output and data gathering) that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1, 5-12, 16, 21, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Boswell Beth can be reached at 571 272-6737. 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.
/S.S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625