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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 March 2026 has been entered.
This Continued Examination Office Action is in reply to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 30 March 2026.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10-12, 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
In the previous office action, Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Applicants have not amended Claims 1-20 to provide statutory support and the rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 30 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection for Claims 1-20, Applicants argue that: the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The provided claim language details receiving data, calculating scores, and displaying results to address employee retention, falls under the Abstract Idea judicial exception. Within Prong 1, these limitations belong to the following specific USPTO-enumerated categories:
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: This category includes fundamental economic practices, commercial and legal interactions, and managing personal behavior. The claim recites "addressing a low retention issue" and "automatically determining one or more actions tailored to each category" of employee(s) and mapping employees to categories (e.g., low retention risk) and determining tailored actions to address these categories relates to managing human resources and interpersonal relationships. These are classic examples of managing human behavior and organizational relationships, which are recognized as "methods of organizing human activity".
Mental Processes: This category includes concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper via Evaluation & Judgment: determining an "employee engagement index score" and mapping employees to categories (e.g., risk levels) and comparing scores to create categories are evaluative steps that a human manager could perform mentally or manually. Also, Data Analysis: Receiving "weightages" and "influencer scores" to calculate a final score is a process of observation and judgment that mirrors mental thought processes.
Mathematical Concepts: This category includes mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations. While the claim does not explicitly recite a formula, the generation of an "employee engagement index score" based on a "plurality of weightages" and “influencer scores” describes a mathematical calculation. Under 2025 standards, even if a formula is not explicitly named, a process that is essentially a series of mathematical steps can be classified as a mathematical concept. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.
Regarding Prong Two: Claims 1-20: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describe how to, generally, “generating an employee engagement recommender model for determining an employee engagement index score of an employee in an organization”. Independent Claims 1, 12, 20 recite additional elements at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements of “one or more processor(s); modules; non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05), Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of “one or more processor(s); modules; non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process:
Step 1: Claims 1-20 are each focused to a statutory category of invention, namely “system; method; non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” sets.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1-20 recite limitations that set forth the abstract ideas, namely, the claims as a whole recite the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite steps for, generally exemplary method Claim 12:
“receive input data comprising a plurality of weightages and a plurality of influencer scores for a plurality of employees;
generate an employee engagement index score for each employee based on the plurality of weightages and the plurality of influencer scores associated with the employee;
map each employee to a category of a plurality of categories based on the generated employee engagement index score;
automatically determining one or more actions tailored to each category of the plurality of categories to address a low retention issue;
a user interface module that, when executed, generates a graphical user interface that displays output data by:
calculating spatial positioning coordinates for each user interface element using multi-dimensional mapping that evaluates the employee engagement index score and the plurality of influencer scores;
determining, based on the calculated spatial positioning coordinates, grid placement in a spatially-correlated grid user interface to maximize comparative analysis; and
automatically arranging the output data using the determined grid placement;
wherein the output data comprises the plurality of influencer scores, the employee engagement index score, and a category associated with each employee,
wherein the graphical user interface comprises a matrix display configuration including influencer scores associated with each employee presented in a second direction, the output data including a color-coded categorical indicator,
wherein the spatial positioning of the user interface elements is automatically calculated and updated in real-time to enable rapid visual risk assessment based on changes to the influencer scores or the weightages to enable rapid visual risk assessment, and
wherein the color-coded categorical indicator associated with each employee is automatically generated and positioned to graphically identify an employee who has a higher possibility to leave employment than other employees, without requiring manual data interpretation”
The provided claim language details receiving data, calculating scores, and displaying results to address employee retention, falls under the Abstract Idea judicial exception. Within Prong 1, these limitations belong to the following specific USPTO-enumerated categories:
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
This category includes fundamental economic practices, commercial and legal interactions, and managing personal behavior. The claim recites "addressing a low retention issue" and "automatically determining one or more actions tailored to each category" of employee(s) and mapping employees to categories (e.g., low retention risk) and determining tailored actions to address these categories relates to managing human resources and interpersonal relationships. These are classic examples of managing human behavior and organizational relationships, which are recognized as "methods of organizing human activity".
Mental Processes
This category includes concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper via Evaluation & Judgment: determining an "employee engagement index score" and mapping employees to categories (e.g., risk levels) and comparing scores to create categories are evaluative steps that a human manager could perform mentally or manually. Also, Data Analysis: Receiving "weightages" and "influencer scores" to calculate a final score is a process of observation and judgment that mirrors mental thought processes.
Mathematical Concepts
This category includes mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations. While the claim does not explicitly recite a formula, the generation of an "employee engagement index score" based on a "plurality of weightages" and “influencer scores” describes a mathematical calculation. Under 2025 standards, even if a formula is not explicitly named, a process that is essentially a series of mathematical steps can be classified as a mathematical concept. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components.
Prong Two: Claims 1-20: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describe how to, generally, “generating an employee engagement recommender model for determining an employee engagement index score of an employee in an organization”. Independent Claims 1, 12, 20 recite additional elements at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements of “one or more processor(s); modules; non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) (“The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point”). See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of DNA amplification and analysis are not “sufficient” to render claim 1 patent eligible merely because they are physical steps). Conversely, the presence of a non-physical or intangible additional element does not doom the claims, because tangibility is not necessary for eligibility under the Alice/Mayo test. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“that the improvement is not defined by reference to ‘physical’ components does not doom the claims”). See also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016), (holding that a process producing an intangible result (a sequence of synchronized, animated characters) was eligible because it improved an existing technological process). Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05), Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of “one or more processor(s); modules; non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
The Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery (e.g., see Applicants’ Specification ¶’s 3, 4, 26-69) regarding using existing computer processors as well as program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored. “system 800” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit and display data) and/or use computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Horseman et al. (US 2017/0169379)
Lahti et al. (WO 2015/056091 A2)
Stanley, Laura, et al. "Commitment profiles and employee turnover." Journal of vocational behavior 82.3 (2013): 176-187.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights