DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Claims on 10/16/2025. Claims 34-41 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 09/25/2019.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/09/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 34-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1- Claims 34-38 are directed to a computer, which is a machine that is deemed appropriate subject matter for a patent. Claims 39, and 41 are directed to a method, which is a process that is deemed appropriate subject matter for a patent. Claims 40 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is a manufacture that is deemed appropriate subject matter for a patent. Accordingly, claims 34-41 pass Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1- The independent claims 34, and similarly claims 39 and 40, recites the following abstract idea (with identified additional elements):
at least one memory configured to store instructions and information (additional element; see analysis under Step 2A Prong 2; Step 2B);
at least one network interface connected to at least one network (additional element; see analysis under Step 2A Prong 2; Step 2B);
at least one storage medium (additional element; see analysis under Step 2A Prong 2; Step 2B) storing a database
wherein the computer is configured to record the start and end times of attendances for at least one worker who’s working style is that the at last one worker decides, at the at least one workers own discretion, the start and end times of attendances, and the number of times the at least one worker attends each day, wherein the at least one worker may attend at least two or more times in a working day (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processing as this can be performed with pen/paper and/or in the human mind; recording information about workers, including the start of their attendance at work, are elements that are used by a business to track employee man-hours to complete payroll is a business relations. Business relations are part of the enumerated grouping of a commercial or legal interaction under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B)), and
wherein the database comprises:
at least one work management data table (additional element; see analysis under Step 2A Prong 2; Step 2B); and
at least one processor configured to execute at least the instructions to perform operations (additional element; see analysis under Step 2A Prong 2; Step 2B) comprising:
managing information of attendances of the at least one worker who attends work two or more times in one day with a variable interval, which is out of management, between each of the two or more times of attendances, wherein the information of attendances comprises, for each attendance, at least a date, an attendance time, and a leaving time (the management of worker hours, including attendance start and end of work are all elements that are used by a business to track employees man-hours to complete payroll is how a company has business relations. Business relations are part of the enumerated grouping of a commercial or legal interaction under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), and the larger grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity);
each time after receiving, through the network (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2) Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that “with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper”. 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. (emphasis added)), information informing of an occurrence of a start event of an attendance of the at least one worker, performing first operations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processing; receiving information is an action that humans perform in their minds, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) when a mental process is performed on a computer, such as through a network, it remains an abstract idea because the limitation is a concept that is performed in the human mind, and the claims are drafted to claim the concept is performed on a computer, as a tool to perform the mental process);
wherein the information informing of the occurrence of the start event of the attendance comprises: a worker ID; and a date and a time of the start event of the attendance, wherein the start event is not scheduled or predefined, and may occur at an arbitrary time based on the at least one workers discretion, thereby supporting attendance management for working styles that are non-routine or flexible (details about what the information being stored is, does not make the act of storage any more based on reality than if the information did not have any details, therefore see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processing; receiving information is an action that humans perform in their minds, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)() when a mental process is performed on a computer, such as through a network, it remains an abstract idea because the limitation is a concept that is performed in the human mind, and the claims are drafted to claim the concept is performed on a computer, as a tool to perform the mental process); and
wherein the first operation comprise:
storing, in the at least one memory, the received information informing of the occurrence of the start event of the attendance, to enable temporary buffering and asynchronous processing of attendance events prior to database registration of the events (see MPEP 2106.05(f) TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747 (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II); storing received information is an action that humans perform in their minds, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) when a mental process is performed on a computer, such as through a memory, it remains an abstract idea because the limitation is a concept that is performed in the human mind, and the claims are drafted so the concept is performed on a computer, and only as a tool to perform the mental process);
generating, in the work management data table, a new first data record corresponding to the worker ID, independently from other first data records, wherein the new first data record records information comprising at least a date and a time of the start event of the attendance (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721. generating records about workers, including the start of their attendance at work, are elements that are used by a business to track employees man-hours to complete payroll is a business relations. Business relations are part of the enumerated grouping of a commercial or legal interaction under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), and the larger grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity), and
wherein the new first data record is configured to uniquely associate a start event with a corresponding end event, enabling accurate tracking of multiple attendances per day (associating two different data points, and tracking the data points is the analysis of the information, which is a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processing; receiving information is an action that humans perform in their minds, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) when a mental process is performed on a computer, such as through a network, it remains an abstract idea because the limitation is a concept that is performed in the human mind, and the claims are drafted to claim the concept is performed on a computer, as a tool to perform the mental process);
recording, on the generated new first data record, the date and the time of the start event of the attendance, to establish a time-stamped anchor for subsequent pairing with a corresponding end event (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processing as this can be performed with pen/paper and/or in the human mind; recording information about workers, including the start of their attendance at work, are elements that are used by a business to track employee man-hours to complete payroll is a business relations. Business relations are part of the enumerated grouping of a commercial or legal interaction under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B)); and
storing, in the work management data table, the new first data record, on which the date and the time of the start event of the attendance have been recorded, as a persistent entry, enabling historical tracking and ensuring integrity of attendance event sequences (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processes - storing received information is an action that humans perform in their minds, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) when a mental process is performed on a computer, such as through a memory, it remains an abstract idea because the limitation is a concept that is performed in the human mind, and the claims are drafted so the concept is performed on a computer, and only as a tool to perform the mental process); and each time after receiving, through the network, information informing of an occurrence of an end event of the attendance of the at least one worker, performing second operations (receiving information is an action that humans perform in their minds, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C) when a mental process is performed on a computer, such as through a network, it remains an abstract idea because the limitation is a concept that is performed in the human mind, and the claims are drafted to claim the concept is performed on a computer, as a tool to perform the mental process),
wherein the information informing of the occurrence of the end event of the attendance comprises: the worker ID; and a date and a time of the end event of the attendance, wherein the end event is not scheduled or predefined, and may occur at an arbitrary time based on the at least one worker’s discretion (details about what the information being stored is, does not make the act of storage any more based on reality than if the information did not have any details, therefore see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processing; receiving information is an action that humans perform in their minds, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)() when a mental process is performed on a computer, such as through a network, it remains an abstract idea because the limitation is a concept that is performed in the human mind, and the claims are drafted to claim the concept is performed on a computer, as a tool to perform the mental process), and wherein the second operations comprise:
storing, in the at least one memory, the received information informing of the occurrence of the end event of the attendance, to facilitate real-time correlation with a previously recorded start event (see MPEP 2106.05(f) TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. storing received information is an action that humans perform in their minds, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) when a mental process is performed on a computer, such as through a memory, it remains an abstract idea because the limitation is a concept that is performed in the human mind, and the claims are drafted so the concept is performed on a computer, and only as a tool to perform the mental process; further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) commercial or legal interaction of storing worker information relating to start time, end time, etc for documenting purposes and payroll);
extracting, from the work management data table, the new first data record comprising the latest start event date and time of the attendance derived from data records corresponding to the worker ID, to ensure accurate pairing of attendance events in environments with multiple attendances per day (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) Examples of product claims reciting mental processes include: An application program interface for extracting and processing information from a diversity of types of hard copy documents – Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 113 USPQ2d at 1356); extracting data about workers, including the start of their attendance at work that corresponds to specific worker ID, are elements that are used by a business to track employees man-hours to complete payroll is a business relations. Business relations are part of the enumerated grouping of a commercial or legal interaction under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), and the larger grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity);
recording, on the extracted new first data record, the time of the end event of the attendance, thereby establishing a completed attendance pair comprising the start event and the end event, to enable unambiguous reconstruction of attendance cycles in environments with multiple attendances per day (see MPEP 2106.05(f) TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747; recording information about workers, including the start time of their work, are elements that are used by a business to track employees man-hours to complete payroll is a business relations. Business relations are part of the enumerated grouping of a commercial or legal interaction under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B)); and
storing, in the work management data table, the updated new first data record, which now comprises a completed attendance pair of the start event and the end event, as persistent entry to ensure historical integrity and long-term traceability of attendance event sequences (see MPEP 2106.05(f) TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747; storing information is an action that humans perform in their minds, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C) when a mental process is performed on a computer, such as through a memory, it remains an abstract idea because the limitation is a concept that is performed in the human mind, and the claims are drafted so the concept is performed on a computer, and only as a tool to perform the mental process).
When viewed alone and in ordered combination, the limitations of claim 34, and similarly claims 39 and 40, recite abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2- Claim 34 (and similarly claims 39 and 40) do not integrate the identified abstract idea with practical application. To be clear, the additional elements in claim 34 (and similarly in claims 39 and 40) include e.g. a memory, a network interface, a network, a storage medium, a work management data table, processor, generated first data record, and extracted first data record.
These additional elements are recited a high level of generality and do not provide improvement to the functioning of a computer, provide a particular machine, effect a transformation to a different state or apply the abstract idea to a computer element in some meaningful way beyond general linking. The additional elements are recited as a means to implement the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f) describes that the claim may be integrated into a practical application when the computer is more than a tool to perform the process. When the invention recites that additional elements are utilized as a tool to accomplish a solution to a problem, and does not give details of how the computer itself is required to be the solution to a problem, this has been found to be insufficient. Additionally, MPEP 2106.05(a) may integrate independent claim 34 into a practical application if the elements would improve the functionality of a computer.
However, when the independent claim 34 state the process applied on a computer elements, the claims need to address a problem in the software, and how the limitations would be a solution to a technical problem. Simply being automated or faster by its application on a computer does improve the functionality of a computer, and remains directed to an abstract idea.
A memory and a storage medium, are two elements used to store data information, including worker ID, start of an attendance event, start of work, and end of work, as well hold the different databases to implement the method. The memories are claimed as a tool to hold the information, and when the storage elements are used in their ordinary capacity, courts have found that the additional element did not add more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2016.05(f)(2) mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. A network and a network interface, are two elements that are used to send and receive the data information between users and the company, and does not do more than be the moderator of information. The network is being used as tool to exchange information, and when the additional elements are used in their ordinary capacity, such as using a network to exchange information, courts have found that the additional element did not add more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2016.05(f)(2). See also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
A work management data table, a generated first data record, and extracted first data record are all databases that store specific information, and therefore the computer is able to retrieve the information from a smaller database since it is a smaller set of information. However, in order for claims to be patent eligible, the claims must recite a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. When the claim limitation is directed to retrieving or extracting information from specific databases, it does not purport to improve the way the computer stores data in combination with the specific data structure that is needed for claim eligibility. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). The databases, combined with the computer elements can be performed mentally with the idea of improving a business, cannot improve computer technology. (MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) “Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer)”).
A processor is a computer element that is able to process the abstract idea on a computer. The processor is being used as tool to implement the abstract idea, because it is claimed as a tool configured to perform instructions, and when the additional elements are used in their ordinary capacity, such as using a processor to perform some computer operation, courts have found that the additional element did not add more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2016.05(f)(2).
When these additional elements are viewed alone and in ordered combination the examiner finds that claim 34 (and similarly claims 39 and 40) are directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B- Claim 34 (and similarly claims 39 and 40) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea, and are used as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements are presented as a means to implement the abstract idea. Overall the abstract idea is to manage information on a computer, retrieve information, store information, generate tables, record information and extracting information. All of the actions completed by the computer are actions that may also be accomplished mentally for the purpose of business relations. When the additional elements are configured to perform the abstract idea, they are simply being used as a tool(s) to implement the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, as a whole the claims do not provide a technical solution to a technical problem, but rather use the computer elements to make the entire process faster. Without details on how the abstract actions would affect the functionality of a computer, the claims fail to showcase that there would be a technical improvement under MPEP 2106.05(a).
The dependent claim 35 and 41 adds additional receiving, storing, extracting, and recording of information steps. All of these are a mental process, as described above in regards to the independent claim, and are implemented on computer elements also previously discussed. And therefore, claim 35 and 41 recites additional steps that follow the same abstract steps as the independent claim it depends from.
Dependent claim 36 basically repeats claim 34, because the entirety of the system is the computer of claim 34. Therefore, the addition of the attendance management system” is a preamble descriptive word for the computer found in 34. The same abstract ideas and failure to integrate into a practical application applied.
Dependent claims 37 and 38 add additional information about the data being retrieved and analyzed. The information make the data more specific, but it does not add additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The information follows the same reasoning as independent claim 34, the claim with substance from which it depends.
Accordingly, claims 34-41 are found to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Limitations not Found in Prior Art
Regarding 102
Niazi is able to teach multiple data records, since all log on and log off events are logged, and each record showcases that the interval between each log on and log off creates one data point, and then it may be repeated based on the total amount of log on and log off events (Niazi [0021] records time of log in and log out using timestamp, saved to memory; [0026] the information is stored on a database; [0038] using may clock in and clock out, and take time out for lunch break; [0060] supervisor approval required by manager after finalized timecard; finalized timecards is made available through timecard module, end event would be finalized).
However, the following claims limitations are not found in prior art:
may occur at an arbitrary time based on the at least one workers discretion, thereby supporting attendance management for working styles that are non-routine or flexible
to enable temporary buffering and asynchronous processing of attendance events prior to database registration of the events
independently from other first data records, wherein the new first data record records information comprising at least a date and a time of the start event of the attendance
establishing a completed attendance pair comprising the start event and the end event, to enable unambiguous reconstruction of attendance cycles in environments with multiple attendances per day
Even though the claim limitations are not found in the prior art, the claims still remain ineligible under 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner would note that they are a Junior Examiner, and therefore a Primary Examiner and Supervisor has reviewed each and every action before being submitted. Therefore, the Pendency of the Application is not in question. Examiner would further note that all six previous office actions have used the same or similar art, because the amendments being made by Applicant does not change the invention, but merely adds a third version of the steps previously taught in art, completely cancels all previous claims and adds completely new claims, and therefore it is not strange to need new office actions in response to new claims. Additionally, Examiner would also note that four separate Supervisors have reviewed the applications, in all stages, and have all agreed with Examiners analysis, which further shows a detailed review, and an art unit wide ascertain of the 101, 102 and 103 rejections previously presented.
Regarding 101, the Applicant points to an improvement in the computer functionality by mitigating ordering and consistency errors by structuring event intake and storage as asynchronous buffered solutions. The specific steps these are under are recording and storing, and therefore, as a whole the limitation relates to storing information in a memory, that the “to enable” showcases an intended use of the storage. Additionally, there is no explanation to what the temporary buffering requires, and asynchronous processing technical features. Reciting limitations at such a wide breadth could entail any processing between two points in time, and without specificity, the claim limitations fail to provide details that would amount to details of a computer improvement, and is more attune to describing a solution, without providing details on how to accomplish that solution. Examiner sought additional help from QAS Kevin Flynn, who agreed the breadth and language of the claim limitation does not showcase an improvement to the functionality of a computer, and therefore remain ineligible under 101.
Examiner also takes note of Applicants Argument (III) “No new matter has been introduced…supported by at least [0023-0029], [0031-0032], and [0059-0063]. However, when Examiner looks at the Specification filed on 03/24/2022, there are no paragraphs, and Examiner cannot find mention of buffering or asynchronous.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0089630 Lewis et al. teaches time recording (3, 6, 14 15); US 7,233,919 B1 Lennart et al. teaches tracking time and attendance (Abstract); US 2019/0205799 A1 Chiu teaches a cloud system with check-in request (Abstract) and US 2008/0294687 A1 Treibach-Heck teaches time reported to a center database (Abstract); “Develop Attendance Management System with Feedback and Complaint Management Function” Ahmed et al. teaches improvement to employee attendance records (Abstract); US 2019/0057340 A1 Wang teaches business rule information (Wang [0148-0149]); US 2019/0180219 A1 Kuroda teaches management of tasks (Abstract); US 2017/0109834 A1 Shaaban teaches management of workers (Abstract).
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 JESSICA E SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9501. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th; 9:00 AM-5PM EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/JESSICA E SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627