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 . The following is a final office action in response to the amendment/remarks filed 06/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts the additional amendments apply the judicial exception of use by particular machines as the at least one gaming table comprising at least one sensor, the staff device, and the supervisor device are specifically designed an arranged to collect specific, real time performance parameters for the efficiency score. Examiner upholds the assertion that the collection and evaluation of performance inputs and generating a score is an abstract idea as described in the rejection below. It has been established that a general purpose computer is flexible—it can do anything it is programmed to do. Id. at 1333. EON Corp., IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 14-1392 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, the claims disclose various sensors to collect data. The claimed server collects this data in real time and generates an efficiency score based on a evaluation algorithm. This collection and analysis of the data using sensors and server amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The specification does not describe any of the computing elements (sensors, the server, the user devices) with any specificity that persuades the Examiner the computing elements are more than a convention device performing routine functions. Claims that “amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply [an] abstract idea . . . using some unspecified, generic computer” and in which “each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions” do not make an abstract idea patent-eligible, Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359–60 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), because “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not “provide a sufficient inventive concept.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (“Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Bank”), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Applicant emphasizes the claimed motion sensor, which is not mentioned in the specification.
Applicant also asserts the staff device and supervisor device must be uniquely configured, however, as mentioned above, a general purpose computer is flexible—it can do anything it is programmed to do (Eon). Further, the specification describes the display as follows “It would be appreciated by the person skilled in the art, that the means in which input is received by the staff member may be in any form typical to the device. In an example, the input may be a touch screen. In another example, the input may be a physical keyboard that forms part of the staff device 16.” [paragraph 0047]. Examiner is persuaded that the arrangement of sensors and devices amount to anything more than merely using a computer to perform the abstract idea. There is no improvement to the computer or to any other technology and no use of a particular machine. The claims are not integrated into a practical application.
The rejection under 35 USC 101 has been updated to reflect most recent amendments.
The amendments require a new rejection under 35 USC 112 which is included below. The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is withdrawn
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-18 and 20 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. Claim(s) 1, 5-18 and20 is/are directed to a method, system, and CRM. Thus, all the claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, an article of manufacture and a machine, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis provided in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), the Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a judicial exception since they are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, the steps of
In independent claim 1:
determine the one or more work sites for real time allocation to the staff member profile; (evaluation/observation – mental process)
transmit a first communication to a staff
receive from the staff
receive a plurality of performance parameters from the selected work site via the respective data inputs, wherein the plurality of performance parameters is aggregated in real time into a set of performance parameters which is added to the log of performance parameters; (evaluation/observation – mental process)and
determine in real time an efficiency modifier based upon the set of performance parameters, said efficiency modifier used to modify the efficiency score of the staff member profile; (evaluation – mental process)
wherein the aggregation of said performance parameters and determination of said efficiency modifier are performed via an evaluation algorithm accounting for said staff technical and behavioural performance data inputs over a predetermined time frame threshold; (evaluation – mental process)
retrieve the staff member profile
receive input from the staff member
transmit the second communication that identifies the selected work site;
receive feedback input from the staff member
transmit the feedback communication as one of the plurality of performance parameters;
receive the efficiency score, said efficiency score updated in real time
display the efficiency score
receive real time efficiency score updates and performance analytics of the staff member (evaluation/ pen and paper – mental process).
In independent claim 18:
generating and storing a staff member profile
determining,
selecting, by a staff member
accumulating, by the selected work site, real time a plurality of performance parameters indicative of staff technical performance and behavioural performance, wherein the data inputs comprise
receiving,
receiving,
determining,
displaying in real time the efficiency score
receiving, from a supervisor staff member
transmitting,
receiving,
…is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites certain methods of organizing human activity and covers concepts relating to managing people and the rules or instructions one would follow to evaluate staff members. Further steps of the claims including observations and evaluations as indicated above are mental processes.
The nominal recitation of a system comprising a server, sensors and a staff device and a server do not indicate the claimed invention is not an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim directed to an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Both Claims 1 and 18 include a system comprising a server, sensors, and staff and supervisor devices to facilitate the transmission and processing of data which amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claim invokes computers merely as a tool to perform the abstract process. Use of a computer in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (to receive store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)2
Further, the claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually, the system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 2 is directed to a sensor to gather work site data which amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 5 further limits the staff device to include at least one sensor, which amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the claimed method. There is no integration into a practical application. Claim 6 is directed to accepting payment which is an abstract step. The payment terminal amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea therefore the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 7 is directed to further capabilities of the payment terminal which amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. Claims 8 and 9 are directed to additional details of the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The server amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Claims 10-15 are directed to additional steps of the abstract idea. The claimed server and device with display capabilities amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 16 and 17 add an external device configured to receive and display the score and receive and transmit data. This also amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 20 adds additional abstract data analysis steps to the abstract idea and the claimed sensor used to gather data amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims are amended to include “a motion sensor”, however there is no mention of a motion sensor in the specification. A “movement sensor” is disclosed in paragraph 0010. Please make appropriate corrections.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach Applicant’s invention. The closest prior art, cited by examiner, includes: Risnoveanu et al, US 2009/0024456, and Knust et al, US 9174114. Further, Applicant’s reply makes evident the reason for allowance, satisfying the record as a whole as required by rule 37 CFR 1.104(e). In this case, the substance of applicant’s remarks filed on October 24, 2024, point out the reason claims are patentable over the prior art of record (see MPEP 1302.14).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625