DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to reply to the amendments and remarks filed 30 October 2025.
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended.
Claim 22 has been added.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 16 and 18-22 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection under the Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank Int’l be withdrawn; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial note, the arguments are not compliant under 37 CFR 1.111(b) as they amount to a mere allegation of patent eligibility based upon a bare assertion of improvement. The Examiner respectfully does not find the assertion persuasive because a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent is not sufficient to show an improvement (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (discussing MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, the Examiner does not find any evidence that the claimed aspects are any improvement over conventional systems. Here, as noted in the previous rejections, the claims are directed towards a method of organizing human activities. For example, but for the “a hardware processor configured to” language, “generate” “store,” “search” “extract” and “calculate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing human resource tasks of writing and storing performance skill evaluations and storing them for accessibility (searching) which is a commercial or legal interaction or employment/hiring as well as managing personal behavior such as the behavior of users as organized and managed in a resume or job history. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as one of the methods of organizing human activities, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Next, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two). The claims recitation of the shovel including a state detecting device, storage unit to store skill evaluations, contractor’s terminal device to receive search input and output the results and to transmit the work request are simply extrasolution data gathering activities, and post solution output. Next, the claim only recites one additional element – using a hardware processor configured to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of electronic data storage, query, and retrieval) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recitation of the “in a storage unit” and ” generate a user interface including a list of the workers in order according to the priority, an icon for selecting a worker in the list, and an icon for sending a work request to a selected worker, and display the user interface” are only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the combination of these additional elements 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 an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole. As such, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection not withdrawn.
Applicant next argues that the claims are significantly more as the claim elements are not well-understood routine and conventional; however the Examiner disagrees. As discussed above (and in previous rejections) with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), the combination of additional elements of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Reevaluating here in step 2B, the shovel including a state detecting device, storage unit to store skill evaluations, contractor’s terminal device to receive search input and output the results and the transmitting of the work request which are insignificant extrasolution activities are also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that the mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as is here). Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim. Again, these arguments also appears to be that the claims are patent eligible due to the arguments regarding the §103 rejections; however, the Examiner asserts that subject matter eligibility and novelty/non-obviousness are two separate inquires, neither being a benchmark for the other. See Amdocs Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Novelty is the question of whether the claimed invention is new. Inventiveness is the question of whether the claimed matter is invention at all, new or otherwise. The inventiveness inquiry of § 101 should therefore not be confused with the separate novelty inquiry of § 102 or the obviousness inquiry of § 103.”). This argument also appears to be whether or not the use of computer or computing components for increased speed and efficiency integrates the claims into a practical application; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)). As such, the arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection not withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks with respect to the prior art have been fully considered but are moot on grounds of new rejection, as necessitated by the amendments.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by the Applicants in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in the Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). The Examiner asserts that the Applicants only argue that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
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 1-4, 6-7, 16 and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a process (an act, or series of acts or steps), a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), and a manufacture (an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1). However, the claim(s) recite(s) generate and store skill evaluations for outputting a search result based upon a search condition for a worker which is an abstract idea of organizing human activity.
The limitations of “generate and store skill evaluation information associated with an evaluation result of an operating skill of a worker who operates the work machine and identification information identifying the worker…based on work performance information obtained from the work machine; search and extract the worker's identification information associated with the evaluation result that satisfies the search condition automatically update the skill evaluation information of the worker, who operates a work machine, every time the work performance information is acquired from the work machine, and assign a priority to each of workers according to a degree of matching based on the search condition and display a list of the workers in order according to the priority wherein... calculate, for each of a plurality of work types, a score based on operation time of the shovel, fuel consumed, and a travel distance of the shovel that are obtained from the work pattern performance information and the environmental condition performance information and store the score, for each of the plurality of work types, as a part of the skill evaluation information associated with the evaluation result of the operating skill of the worker, wherein the search condition includes a desired score for each of the plurality of work types, and wherein... calculate, for each of the plurality of work types, the score based on a weight for each of the operation time of the shovel, the fuel consumed, and the travel distance of the shovel; wherein...for each of the plurality of work types, compare the score of each worker with the desired score, and exclude the worker from a candidate list if the score for at least one work type does not satisfy the desired score” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activities--commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, 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) but for the recitation of generic computer components (Step 2A Prong 1). That is, other than reciting “a hardware processor configured to,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. For example, but for the “a hardware processor configured to” language, “generate” “store,” “search” “extract” and “calculate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing human resource tasks of writing and storing performance skill evaluations and storing them for accessibility (searching) which is a commercial or legal interaction or employment/hiring as well as managing personal behavior such as the behavior of users as organized and managed in a resume or job history. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as one of the methods of organizing human activities, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two). The claims recitation of the shovel including a state detecting device, storage unit to store skill evaluations, contractor’s terminal device to receive search input and output the results and to transmit the work request are simply extrasolution data gathering activities, and post solution output. Next, the claim only recites one additional element – using a hardware processor configured to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of electronic data storage, query, and retrieval) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recitation of the “in a storage unit” and ” generate a user interface including a list of the workers in order according to the priority, an icon for selecting a worker in the list, and an icon for sending a work request to a selected worker, and display the user interface” are only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the combination of these additional elements 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 an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole.
The claim does not include a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), the combination of additional elements of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Reevaluating here in step 2B, the shovel including a state detecting device, storage unit to store skill evaluations, contractor’s terminal device to receive search input and output the results and the transmitting of the work request which are insignificant extrasolution activities are also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that the mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as is here). Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim. As such, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole.
Claims 2-4, 6, 16 and 18-20 are dependent on claims 1 and 7 and include all the limitations of claims 1 and 7. Therefore, claims 2-4, 6, 16 and 18-20 recite the same abstract idea of “generate and store skill evaluations for outputting a search result based upon a search condition for a worker.” The claims recite the additional limitations further including limiting the data used (search condition, work type), a notification, and index score which are all still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 7, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claim 21 are dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 21 recites the same abstract idea of “generate and store skill evaluations for outputting a search result based upon a search condition for a worker.” The claims recite the additional limitations further including capturing video, which are all still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 7, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claim 22 are dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 22 recites the same abstract idea of “generate and store skill evaluations for outputting a search result based upon a search condition for a worker.” The claims recite the additional limitations further including providing a location based notification, which are all still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 7, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 16 and 18-22 are therefore not eligible subject matter, even when considered as a whole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 16, 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozumi et al. (US PG Pub. 2017/0255895) further in view of Catino et al. (US PG Pub. 2016/0335694) and Shike et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0341901).
As per claims 1 and 7, Kozumi discloses a management system for managing a shovel including an upper turning structure and an attachment that is turnably mounted to the upper turning structure, and management device for managing a shovel comprising (evaluation system, Kozumi ¶11 and Fig. 1; Excavator/working vehicle, Fig. 2 and ¶46-¶47; that rotates/swings, ¶49):
a shovel including a state detecting device configured to detect a plurality of kinds of detection information, including a posture state and an operational state of the attachment and an image device configured to capture a peripheral image of the shovel, said shovel being further configured to transmit work performance information including work pattern performance information including the plurality of kinds of detection information including the posture state and the operation state of the attachment and environmental condition performance information including the peripheral image of the shovel at a predetermined timing, said state detecting device including a tilt sensor configured to detect tilt angles about twin axes of the upper turning structure of the shovel in a longitudinal direction and lateral direction of the shovel (a detection data acquisition unit that acquires, based on operation data of a working unit of a working vehicle, first detection data indicating an excavation amount of the working unit and second detection data indicating an excavation period of the working unit; and an evaluation data generation unit that generates evaluation data of an operator who operates the working unit based on the first detection data and the second detection data, Kozumi ¶7; skill of operator Ma is evaluated based upon operating data and operating state, ¶209; The photographing device 63 has a video camera function capable of acquiring video data of a subject and a still camera function capable of acquiring still-image data of a subject. The photographing device 63 includes an optical system and an imaging element that acquires photographic data of a subject via the optical system. The imaging element includes a charge coupled device (CCD) image sensor or a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor. The photographing device 63 can photograph the excavator 3. The photographing device 63 functions as a detection device that detects the operation of the working unit 10 of the excavator 3. The photographing device 63 photographs the excavator 3 from the outside of the excavator 3 to detect the operation of the working unit 10. The photographing device 63 can acquire the photographic data of the working unit 10 to acquire movement data of the working unit 10 including at least one of a movement trajectory, a moving speed, and a moving time of the working unit 10. The photographic data of the working unit 10 includes one or both of the video data and the still-image data of the working unit 10, ¶66-¶67; operation data of the bucket detected by sensors, ¶197-¶198; angles/weights, ¶199-¶200)
a hardware processor configured to generate and store skill evaluation information associated with an evaluation result of an operating skill of a worker who operates the shovel and identification information identifying the worker in a storage unit based on work performance information obtained from the shovel (Next, the mobile device 6 illustrated in FIG. 5 will be described in detail. FIG. 6 is a functional block diagram illustrating an example of the mobile device 6 according to the present embodiment. The mobile device 6 functions as an evaluation device 600 that evaluates one or both of the operation of the excavator 3 and the skill of the operator Ma operating the excavator 3. The function of the evaluation device 600 is performed by the arithmetic processing device 60 and the storage device 61, The evaluation device 600 includes a detection data acquisition unit 601 that acquires detection data including a moving state of the working unit 10 based on photographic data (hereinafter appropriately referred to operation data) of the working unit 10 of the excavator 3, detected by the photographing device 63, a position data calculation unit 602 that calculates position data of the working unit 10 based on the operation data of the working unit 10 of the excavator 3, detected by the photographing device 63, a target data generation unit 603 that generates target data including a target movement condition of the working unit 10, an evaluation data generation unit 604 that generates evaluation data based on the detection data and the target data, a display control unit 605 that controls the display device 64, a storage unit 608, and an input and output unit 610. The evaluation device 600 performs data communication via the input and output unit 610. The photographing device 63 detects operation data of the working unit 10 operated by the operator Ma using the operating device 8 when the working unit 10 moves from a movement starting position to a movement ending position. In the present embodiment, the operation data of the working unit 10 includes photographic data of the working unit 10 photographed by the photographing device 63, Kozumi ¶78-¶80; In the present embodiment, in evaluation of the skill of the operator Ma, the operation condition of the working unit 10 by the operator Ma is determined so that the working unit 10 moves under specific movement conditions, ¶113);
wherein the hardware processor is configured to: automatically update the skill evaluation information of the worker, who operates a work machine, every time the work performance information is acquired from the work machine (Moreover, the display control unit 605 displays the skill score of the operator Ma on the display device 64 as the qualitative evaluation data. Reference data for the skill is stored in the storage unit 608. The reference data is evaluation data obtained by comprehensively evaluating the numerical data of the respective items of “linearity”, “distance”, “time”, and “speed” for an operator having a standard skill, for example, and is obtained statistically or empirically. The skill score of the operator Ma is calculated based on the reference data, Kozumi ¶148; rankings compared to other operators, ¶152) (Examiner notes the ability to have a skill score as an average as the ability to automatically update every time the worker operates the machine), and
While Kozumi discloses as shown above, and the ability to search or request a list of operators (Kozumi ¶152-¶153); does not expressly disclose receive a search condition of the worker input from a contractor's terminal device, search the storage unit, and extract the worker's identification information associated with the evaluation result that satisfies the search condition; output the search result to the contractor's terminal device; assign a priority to each of workers according to a degree of matching based on the search condition, generate a user interface including a list of the workers in order according to the priority, an icon for selecting a worker in the list, and an icon for sending a work request to a selected worker, and display the user interface; transmit the work request to a worker that is associated with the worker's identification information of the selected worker; wherein the search condition includes a desired score for each of the plurality of work types, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to, for each of the plurality of work types, compare the score of each worker with the desired score, and exclude the worker from a candidate list if the score for at least one work type does not satisfy the desired score.
However, Catino teaches
receive a search condition of the worker input from a contractor's terminal device, search the storage unit, and extract the worker's identification information associated with the evaluation result that satisfies the search condition (Once the account has been created, or the service user logs into an existing account, the service user can search for construction workers using any suitable searching technique, such as an interactive search bar that suggests jobs as the service user types, for example. Once the search has been made, in one embodiment the construction workers that meet all of the preferences can be displayed in ascending order of time for the service provider to travel to the job site. The service user can sort or filter based on any other suitable parameters, such as rate, experience level, and so forth. The service user (e.g., a site supervisor, a foreman, or other liaison at the construction company) can then review the profiles of all the matches and select one of the service providers that match the requirements and that is available either on-demand or at the desired time. Upon receiving a selection of a particular service provider, a service request can be processed by the LME, Catino ¶21); and
output the search result to the contractor's terminal device (Once the account has been created, or the service user logs into an existing account, the service user can search for construction workers using any suitable searching technique, such as an interactive search bar that suggests jobs as the service user types, for example. Once the search has been made, in one embodiment the construction workers that meet all of the preferences can be displayed in ascending order of time for the service provider to travel to the job site. The service user can sort or filter based on any other suitable parameters, such as rate, experience level, and so forth. The service user (e.g., a site supervisor, a foreman, or other liaison at the construction company) can then review the profiles of all the matches and select one of the service providers that match the requirements and that is available either on-demand or at the desired time. Upon receiving a selection of a particular service provider, a service request can be processed by the LME, Catino ¶21; A variety of information regarding each service provider 144 can be displayed, as may be available, such as a name, a profile picture, and other relevant profile information, such as a rating, experience and wage rate, and so forth, ¶46; see also Fig. 13);
assign a priority to each of workers according to a degree of matching based on the search condition, generate a user interface including a list of the workers in order according to the priority, an icon for selecting a worker in the list, and an icon for sending a work request to a selected worker, and display the user interface (Once the search has been made, in one embodiment the construction workers that meet all of the preferences can be displayed in ascending order of time for the service provider to travel to the job site. The service user can sort or filter based on any other suitable parameters, such as rate, experience level, and so forth. The service user (e.g., a site supervisor, a foreman, or other liaison at the construction company) can then review the profiles of all the matches and select one of the service providers that match the requirements and that is available either on-demand or at the desired time. Upon receiving a selection of a particular service provider, a service request can be processed by the LME, Catino ¶21; ratings used as factors for matching, ¶15, ¶20, and ¶26; on a mobile device, ¶17; Fig. 13 showing different icons/selection options in a graphical user interface) (Examiner notes the ratings for the service providers as the equivalent to the priority assignments);
transmit the work request to a worker that is associated with the worker's identification information of the selected worker (Once the service user 142 has identified an acceptable service provider from the list of identified service providers 1302, the service user 142 can activate the send service request button 1310 to begin the transaction with the selected service provider 144. The selected service provider 144 can then receive a notification that they have a pending service request (as shown in FIG. 4, for example). If they accept the service request (as shown in FIG. 6), the service appointment can be added to calendars of both users, Catino ¶73);
wherein the search condition includes a desired score for each of the plurality of work types, (minimum requirements for service provider, Catino ¶15);
wherein the hardware processor is further configured to, for each of the plurality of work types, compare the score of each worker with the desired score, and exclude the worker from a candidate list if the score for at least one work type does not satisfy the desired score (These ratings can become part of the service provider's profile and can be factored into the matching system in future transactions, Catino ¶15; preferred rating, ¶20; The search results module 206 can be configured to list a selection of service providers 144 who meet some or all requirements of a search query. The list of service providers can be ordered or ranked based on any number of parameters, such as real-time proximity to the job site. A variety of information regarding each service provider 144 can be displayed, as may be available, such as a name, a profile picture, and other relevant profile information, such as a rating, experience and wage rate, and so forth, ¶46) (Examienr interprets the ability to provide seach query results based upon a requiement of a search query such as a preferred rating for a service provider as the ability to compare scores of worker with the desired or preferred score and provide a list of only the preferred worker scores and thus excluding when the scores do not satisfy a desired score).
Both the Kozumi and Catino references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with skills management for professionals. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Catino’s ability to store operator profiles and search for qualified operators/laborers in Kozumi’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in an operator management system that is able to provide lists of qualified machine operators for time-sensitive jobs.
The motivation being that there is a need for an on-demand labor management system which can, among other benefits, allow for greater flexibility and adjustment for time-sensitive hires. For example, service providers can be given more control over their schedule, the type of work they do, as well as other types of labor preferences. With the traditional work week and schedule falling out of favor as people seek more flexibility and autonomy in their work schedule, a labor market exchange can allow for service providers to work on their own time and makes them selectively available to those seeking their labor (Catino ¶13; with respect to a construction worker, ¶18-¶21).
The combination of Kozumi and Catino do not expressly disclose wherein the hardware processor is configured to calculate, for each of a plurality of work types, a score based on operation time of the shovel, fuel consumed, and a travel distance of the shovel that are obtained from the work pattern performance information and the environmental condition performance information and store the score, for each of the plurality of work types, as a part of the skill evaluation information associated with the evaluation result of the operating skill of the worker, and wherein the hardware processor is configured to calculate, for each of the plurality of work types, the score based on a weight for each of the operation time of the shovel, the fuel consumed, and the travel distance of the shovel.
However, Shike teaches wherein the hardware processor is configured to calculate, for each of a plurality of work types, a score based on operation time of the shovel, fuel consumed, and a travel distance of the shovel that are obtained from the work pattern performance information and the environmental condition performance information and store the score, for each of the plurality of work types, as a part of the skill evaluation information associated with the evaluation result of the operating skill of the worker, and wherein the hardware processor is configured to calculate, for each of the plurality of work types, the score based on a weight for each of the operation time of the shovel, the fuel consumed, and the travel distance of the shovel (fuel consumption, Shike ¶65; as it pertains to operating time, ¶169; fuel efficiency as it relates to skill of operator, ¶181).
The Kozumi, Catino, and Shike references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with skills management for professionals. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Shike’s ability to evaluated operator’s skill efficiency in Catino’s and in Kozumi’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in an operator management system that is able to provide lists of qualified machine operators for time-sensitive jobs.
The motivation being that in selling or renting a work vehicle to a customer, a vendor or a rental dealer of the work vehicle can make appropriate proposal to the customer if skills of operators who operate the work vehicle are known (Shike ¶2).
As per claim 2, Kozumi, Catino, and Shike disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Catino further teaches wherein the hardware processor is configured to transmit a notification, indicating that a work request has been made, from the contractor's terminal device to a worker's terminal device of the worker specified by the identification information in response to selection of identification information of the worker accepting the work request (Continuing with the non-limiting example scenario, the service provider that is selected by the service user can be notified of his or her selection and can have a certain period of time to respond to the request before it times out or otherwise expires. If the service user is selected for on-demand service, he or she may have a relatively short amount of time to respond to the service request, such as a matter of minutes. If the request is for a scheduled service, there can be more time given to respond, as can be determined by the LME and/or the service user. If the service provider declines the request, or otherwise does not respond within the allotted time, the service user can be sent a notification via any suitable technique (e.g., in-app messaging, text message, instant message, email, etc.) and be directed to matches from their original search, which can in some cases include newly added service providers, in order to select another service provider. If the newly selected service provider accepts the service request, the service appointment can be placed on both the calendar of the service user (i.e., the person from the construction company requesting labor in this example scenario) and the service provider (i.e., the construction worker in this example scenario). Fifteen minutes prior to the scheduled start time of the service appointment, or any other suitable timeframe (e.g. 60 minutes, 30 minutes, 5 minutes, etc.) the service user can view a map in which the service provider is tracked in real-time (or substantially real-time) as he or she proceeds to the location to perform the labor, Catino ¶22-¶23).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Catino’s ability to store operator profiles and search for qualified operators/laborers and provide notifications thereof in Kozumi’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in an operator management system that is able to provide lists of qualified machine operators for time-sensitive jobs.
The motivation being that there is a need for an on-demand labor management system which can, among other benefits, allow for greater flexibility and adjustment for time-sensitive hires. For example, service providers can be given more control over their schedule, the type of work they do, as well as other types of labor preferences. With the traditional work week and schedule falling out of favor as people seek more flexibility and autonomy in their work schedule, a labor market exchange can allow for service providers to work on their own time and makes them selectively available to those seeking their labor (Catino ¶13; with respect to a construction worker, ¶18-¶21).
As per claim 3, Kozumi, Catino, and Shike disclose as shown above with respect to claim 2. Catino further teaches wherein the storage unit stores identification information of the worker and the desired conditions information including one or more of the desired conditions information including one or more of a period of work to be performed, an area where the work to be performed, and a wage for the work; wherein the search condition includes a period of the work to be performed, an area where the work to be performed, and the wage for the work; and wherein the hardware processor is configured to refer to the desired condition information to extract the identification information of a worker satisfying the search condition (Continuing with the non-limiting example scenario, the service provider that is selected by the service user can be notified of his or her selection and can have a certain period of time to respond to the request before it times out or otherwise expires. If the service user is selected for on-demand service, he or she may have a relatively short amount of time to respond to the service request, such as a matter of minutes. If the request is for a scheduled service, there can be more time given to respond, as can be determined by the LME and/or the service user. If the service provider declines the request, or otherwise does not respond within the allotted time, the service user can be sent a notification via any suitable technique (e.g., in-app messaging, text message, instant message, email, etc.) and be directed to matches from their original search, which can in some cases include newly added service providers, in order to select another service provider. If the newly selected service provider accepts the service request, the service appointment can be placed on both the calendar of the service user (i.e., the person from the construction company requesting labor in this example scenario) and the service provider (i.e., the construction worker in this example scenario). Fifteen minutes prior to the scheduled start time of the service appointment, or any other suitable timeframe (e.g. 60 minutes, 30 minutes, 5 minutes, etc.) the service user can view a map in which the service provider is tracked in real-time (or substantially real-time) as he or she proceeds to the location to perform the labor, Catino ¶22-¶23; hourly wage for service provider, ¶16 and ¶65 which is also referred to as the rate in Fig. 13; see also ¶26 discussing payment based upon agreed conditions such as hourly rate and time worked based upon the timer).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Catino’s ability to store operator profiles and search for qualified operators/laborers and provide notifications thereof in Kozumi’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in an operator management system that is able to provide lists of qualified machine operators for time-sensitive jobs.
The motivation being that there is a need for an on-demand labor management system which can, among other benefits, allow for greater flexibility and adjustment for time-sensitive hires. For example, service providers can be given more control over their schedule, the type of work they do, as well as other types of labor preferences. With the traditional work week and schedule falling out of favor as people seek more flexibility and autonomy in their work schedule, a labor market exchange can allow for service providers to work on their own time and makes them selectively available to those seeking their labor (Catino ¶13; with respect to a construction worker, ¶18-¶21).
As per claim 4, Kozumi, Catino, and Shike disclose as shown above with respect to claim 3. Kozumi further discloses wherein the hardware processor is configured to identify the work type performed by a work machine based on the work performance information, identify the worker who operates the work machine at the time of obtaining the work performance information, calculate an index indicating a level of operating skill of a specified worker for each type of work specified, and associate the index of each type of the work with an identification information of the worker corresponding to the skill evaluation information, and store the evaluation information in the storage unit (Moreover, the display control unit 605 displays the skill score of the operator Ma on the display device 64 as the qualitative evaluation data. Reference data for the skill is stored in the storage unit 608. The reference data is evaluation data obtained by comprehensively evaluating the numerical data of the respective items of “linearity”, “distance”, “time”, and “speed” for an operator having a standard skill, for example, and is obtained statistically or empirically. The skill score of the operator Ma is calculated based on the reference data, Kozumi ¶148; rankings compared to other operators, ¶152; see also target amount and movement data, ¶177-¶179 and Fig. 19) (Examiner notes the ranked order as the index ranking for each service provider).
As per claim 6, Kozumi, Catino, and Shike disclose as shown above with respect to claim 5. While Kozumi and Catino discloses the ability for the service provider to have a profile with personal information, the combination of Kozumi and Catino does not expressly disclose the profile include wherein the storage unit stores information indicating the family composition of the worker, wherein the hardware processor is configured to transmit a notification based on both information indicating the family composition of the worker and externally provided residential area information regarding a residential area of the worker to at least one of the contractor's terminal device and the worker's terminal device.
However, the Examiner asserts that the information indicating a family composition is simply a label for the personal data to be included in a profile (such as marital status, listed relatives) and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., personal data such as marital status, relatives, demographics etc.) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability (MPEP 2144.04 discussing any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels which does not explicitly alter or impact the functionality of the claimed invention, does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the profile personal data to include a family composition of a worker since the specific type of personal data does not functionally alter or relate to the steps of the method and merely labeling the information differently from that in the prior art does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
As per claim 16, Kozumi, Catino, and Shike disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Kozumi further discloses wherein the hardware processor is configured to calculate score based on at least one of operation time of the shovel, fuel consumed, or a travel distance of the shovel that are obtained from the work pattern performance information and the environmental condition performance information and store the score as a part of the skill evaluation information associated with the evaluation result of the operating skill of the worker (time elapsed, Kozumi ¶141; target amount and movement data, ¶177-¶179 and Fig. 19).
As per claim 18, Kozumi, Catino, and Shike disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Kozumi further discloses wherein the state detecting device includes at least one of a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) compass, a GNSS sensor, or an orientation sensor (global navigation satellite system, Kozumi ¶66; CMOS image sensor, ¶67; see a