DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 6/17/2025. Claims 1-9, 11, and 14-16 have been amended. Claims 17 and 18 have been added. Claim 1-18 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Additionally, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
The previously pending objection to claims 10-16 has been withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The “RELATED U.S APPLICATION DATA” section must be updated. Specifically, the status of Application 16/870,947 (i.e., abandoned) must be included. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings received on 6/17/2025 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7, 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 7 recites “wherein the quality rating is computed once per human resource and reused across insurance provider interactions, thereby reducing computational load by avoiding repeated model evaluations” (emphasis added). There does not seem to be any support in the originally filed specification supporting this limitation. Clarification is required. Dependent claim 8 is rejected based upon the same rationale.
Claim 18 recites “wherein filtering discards the human resource profiles whose availability falls outside the project schedule criteria or whose geographic location is incompatible with the project criteria, prior to computing the compatibility rating, thereby reducing computational load” (emphasis added). There does not seem to be any support in the originally filed specification supporting this limitation. Clarification is required.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, method claims 1-8, 17 and 18 are directed to a series of steps, and system claims 9-16 are directed to one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage devices and program instructions which are stored on at least one of the one or more storage devices. Thus the claims are directed to a manufacture, process, and machine, respectively.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite selection and assignment of a human resource to a project, including creating, generating, receiving, filtering, mapping, displaying, selecting, assigning, identifying, presenting, prompting, and notifying steps.
The limitations of creating, generating, receiving, filtering, mapping, displaying, selecting, assigning, identifying, presenting, prompting, and notifying, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites creating a profile for each of a plurality of human resources, each profile including;(i) one or more parameters indicating availability for work, and (ii)one or more skills, wherein the profile includes at least one parameter that uniquely identifies the human resource, any or a combination of at least one skill and an associated variable that defines proficiency rating, at least one area of compliance achieved, and at least one area of compliance achieved and an associated variable that defines proficiency rating; wherein the parameters and skills are received by at least one of: human resource submission; and accessing a data source having a collection of parameters and skills; generating the proficiency ratings for each of a plurality of skills and compliance areas in the profile, wherein the proficiency ratings are determined based on any or a combination of self-reporting, verification of educational credentials, verification of previous vocational experiences, feedback from previous project engagements, skill assessment results, and training completion, and wherein the proficiency rating for the at least one skill or compliance area increases in response to presence of multiple corroborating data sources supporting that skill or compliance area; receiving data indicating a set of criteria for the project, the criteria including at least an estimated schedule and one skill;. receiving a plurality of human resource profiles interested in the project and matching at least one criterion for the project, wherein the interested human resources submit a pay-rate for engaging in the project; automatically filtering, mapping and displaying the interested human resources on a chart, based on the criteria for the project, compatibility rating of the interested human resources, and the pay-rate of the interested human resources; wherein the compatibility rating is generated by evaluating multidimensional profile data, resulting in a Quantifiable match score that outperforms manual matching methods in both accuracy and processing speed; selecting a human resource from the interested human resources profiles; and assigning or awarding the project to the selected human resource.
Additionally, independent claim 7 recites identifying a plurality of human resources seeking project assignments and insurance; receiving profiles of each of the plurality of human resources by accessing a data source, each profile including an identity of the human resource, generated quality rating of the human resource, and at least one parameter indicating any or a combination of skills and compliance status and corresponding proficiency level; wherein the quality rating is generated using a multivariate model configured to use the values of the profile parameters. including the proficiency levels, wherein the quality rating is computed once per human resource and reused across insurance provider interactions, thereby reducing computational load by avoiding repeated model evaluations: receiving data indicating a set of criteria for the project, wherein the criteria include any or a combination of skills, compliance requirements, working conditions, and an estimated schedule; automatically mapping and displaying the human resources of the plurality of human resources on a chart, based on the criteria for the project assignment, and the quality rating of the human resources, the chart being viewable by the one or more insurance providers: receiving insurance quote for each of the human resources from the at least one insurance provider, in response to a determination by the provider to insure a respective human resource; presenting the available insurance quotes and associated parameters to the respective human resources; prompting the one-or more human resources to select the insurance quote for procurement; and notifying the selected insurance provider by at least one of: a user interface generated by the computing system; and transmitting a digital insurance selection confirmation.
That is, other than reciting a computing system, a user interface generated by the computing system, and an electronic interface, the claim limitations merely cover managing interactions between people, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include a computing system, a user interface generated by the computing system, and an electronic interface. The computing system, user interface generated by the computing system, and an electronic interface in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computing system, a user interface generated by the computing system, and an electronic interface 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.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 2 further describes the human resource and recites additional selecting, assessing, providing, re-assessing, updating, selecting, and assigning steps. Claims 3 and 4 recite additional selecting, assessing, providing, re-assessing, updating, selecting, and assigning steps. Claims 5 and 6 further describe the said set of criteria, and said each of the plurality of human resource profiles. Claims 17 and 18 further describes the compatibility rating and filtering. Similarly, dependent claims 8 and 10-16 recite additional details that further restrict/define the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, a computing system, a user interface generated by the computing system, and an electronic interface.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 0118 of the specification, “These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woodings et al (US 20040267595 A1).
As per claim 1, Woodings et al disclose a computer implemented process for optimizing selection and assignment of a human resource to a project (i.e., Job Management allows for records to be tracked by each job a worker has been assigned to. The Job Management module allows for real-time tracking of scheduled events and the worker cost associated with the project, ¶ 0139), the computer implemented process comprising:
creating a profile for each of a plurality of human resources, each profile including one or more parameters indicating availability for work and one or more skills (i.e., The exemplary Workers List sub-module allows the user to add a new worker, as described above, or to view and edit a worker's profile, ¶ 0191, wherein the Worker List may be split into the following logical parts: i) worker details, ii) skills and qualifications, iii) form fields iv) employment information, v) worker history, vi) tool box and vii) miscellaneous, ¶ 0195),
wherein the profile includes at least one parameter that uniquely identifies the human resource, any or a combination of at least one skill and an associated variable that defines proficiency rating, at least one area of compliance achieved, and at least one area of compliance achieved and an associated variable that defines proficiency rating (i.e., The end user can view the schedule for the upcoming week, and which worker has been assigned to which job, how many hours the workers have been assigned for, and view worker availability, ¶ 0141, The list displays the workers' compliance for the job and work type on the job as well as overall company compliance via color coded icons that check for document expiration, missing documents, incomplete documents, missing skills, ¶ 0400);
wherein the parameters and skills are received by at least one of: human resource submission: and accessing a data source having a collection of parameters and skills (i.e., presented to the user in a form of a screen shown in FIG. 8B, allows the user to access, view and/or edit skills and qualifications of the worker, ¶ 0200);
generating, by a computer system, the proficiency ratings for each of a plurality of skills and compliance areas in the profile, wherein the proficiency ratings are determined based on any or a combination of self-reporting, verification of educational credentials, verification of previous vocational experiences, feedback from previous project engagements, skill assessment results, and training completion (i.e., A user can view how the worker has been rated by his supervisors. This gives the end user more information to help them decide whether or not they would want to use that worker on their next available job, ¶ 0228),
and wherein the proficiency rating for the at least one skill or compliance area increases in response to presence of multiple corroborating data sources supporting that skill or compliance area (i.e., exemplary feature utilizes custom fields to allow the user to dynamically enter key words for tracking information about a worker. These key words allow the user to quickly and easily add and review notes regarding the worker. A user can view how the worker has been rated by his supervisors. This gives the end user more information to help them decide whether or not they would want to use that worker on their next available job and with which supervisor, the worker is most compatible, ¶ 0228);
receiving data indicating a set of criteria for the project, the criteria including at least an estimated schedule and one skill (i.e., The WMS allows the user to enter any possible scenario to locate a specific type of worker based on any criteria in the system and returns a list of workers who meet the criteria, ¶ 0243);
receiving a plurality of human resource profiles interested in the project and matching at least one criterion for the project, wherein the interested human resources submits a pay-rate for engaging in the project (i.e., information such as worker's wage, fringe rate, employee title and other general information can be provided, ¶ 0198);
automatically filtering, mapping and displaying, by the computing system, the interested human resources on a chart, based on the criteria for the project, compatibility rating of the interested human resources, and the pay-rate of the interested human resources (i.e., Job Management is a powerful module that enables the user to take complete control of the execution and monitoring of their jobs sites. This module allows the user to match skills and qualifications with predefined job requirements set by work types allowing precise cost association to be determined for a project, ¶ 0349.. A filter can be set to view worker compensation rates for a particular state as illustrated in FIG. 53. The user can drill into the detailed information of the worker's compensation rate by simply clicking on the name of the worker compensation rate, ¶ 0498);
wherein the compatibility rating is generated by evaluating multidimensional profile data, resulting in a quantifiable match score that outperforms manual matching methods in both accuracy and processing speed (i.e., The WMS has incorporated the ability to list skills in the worker file, the job file and for a work type. This sub-module allows the user to dynamically generate skills to create a limitless list of skills and then relate these skills with the work type, job and worker. Thereby, the user can match a job directly to a qualified worker, ¶ 0455. The capabilities of these many management tools ensure the jobs have the best workers assigned to them and enable the end user to save hundreds of hours that may otherwise be wasted, ¶ 0415);
selecting a human resource from the interested human resource (i.e., workers with advanced skills and higher wages can be scheduled to harder and better paid jobs by using worker qualifications and skills and accounting information, thereby saving costs, ¶ 0238); and
assigning or awarding the project to the selected human resource (i.e., workers with advanced skills and higher wages can be scheduled to harder and better paid jobs by using worker qualifications and skills and accounting information, thereby saving costs, ¶ 0238).
As per claim 2, Woodings et al disclose the human resource is any one of an organizational employee or a contract worker (i.e., The exemplary Workers List sub-module allows the user to add a new worker, as described above, or to view and edit a worker's profile, ¶ 0191), further comprising selecting at least one human resource based on the project criteria, the human resource profiles and the pay-rates for assigning the project (i.e., workers with advanced skills and higher wages can be scheduled to harder and better paid jobs by using worker qualifications and skills and accounting information, thereby saving costs, ¶ 0238); assessing the selected human resources for requirement gaps (i.e., the system will analyze the available work force and return a list of workers meeting the skill and qualification requirements. In addition, the list can be expanded to show workers who did not qualify and why, so the issues can be resolved, ¶ 0151); providing training to the selected human resources for fulfilling the requirement gaps based on the assessment; re-assessing the trained human resources for any one or combination of updated skills and compliance knowledge; updating the human resource profiles based on the re-assessment results (i.e., qualification update report is a report that details which updates each worker has been assigned to. From any document review screen, a worker can be scheduled to take an update, this includes but is not limited to scheduling for training, ¶ 0341); selecting a human resource based on the project criteria, the human resource profiles and the pay-rates; and assigning the selected trained human resource to the project (i.e., workers with advanced skills and higher wages can be scheduled to harder and better paid jobs by using worker qualifications and skills and accounting information, thereby saving costs, ¶ 0238),
wherein the training is offered through any or combination of a coursework, a practical experiment, and a set of micro-learning sessions (i.e., in the case of training schools, each training school can be validated for specific training. Each training facility can be associated to a document type and in turn validated for the pre-cleared type of training, ¶ 0313), and wherein the said set of criteria includes at least one parameter from any or a combination of general domain knowledge, project-specific knowledge, behavioral attributes, and compliance knowledge (i.e., user can simply view or edit the information or enter a new skill or qualification. Additional skills and qualification may include the following information: required industry representations (required by the industry or the ones required by the company for this work), required skills (required by the industry (non-negotiable) and the ones required by the company (possibly negotiable)), level of the required skill, ¶ 0366), and wherein said each of the plurality of human resource profiles includes the identity of the human resource, time durations of availability of human resource to engage in a project, the pay-rate, and at least one parameter indicating any or a combination of general domain knowledge, behavioral attributes, and compliance knowledge of a human resource (i.e., worker detail logical part, which can be accessed by simply clicking on a corresponding tab, see FIG. 8A, provides access to general information such as worker name, social security number, date of birth, employee numbers, addresses, phone numbers and other contact information, which can be provided in a form of a memo field. In addition, information such as worker's wage, fringe rate, employee title and other general information can be provided, ¶ 0198).
As per claim 3, Woodings et al disclose selecting human resources for assigning the project (i.e., workers with advanced skills and higher wages can be scheduled to harder and better paid jobs by using worker qualifications and skills and accounting information, thereby saving costs, ¶ 0238); assessing the selected human resources for requirement gaps (i.e., the system will analyze the available work force and return a list of workers meeting the skill and qualification requirements. In addition, the list can be expanded to show workers who did not qualify and why, so the issues can be resolved, ¶ 0151); providing training to the selected human resources for fulfilling the requirement gaps based on the assessment; re-assessing the trained human resources for any one or combination of updated skills and compliance knowledge; updating the human resource profiles based on the re-assessment results (i.e., qualification update report is a report that details which updates each worker has been assigned to. From any document review screen, a worker can be scheduled to take an update, this includes but is not limited to scheduling for training, ¶ 0341); selecting a human resource based on the project criteria, the human resource profiles and the pay-rates; and assigning the selected trained human resource to the project (i.e., workers with advanced skills and higher wages can be scheduled to harder and better paid jobs by using worker qualifications and skills and accounting information, thereby saving costs, ¶ 0238).
As per claim 4, Woodings et al disclose the training is offered through any or combination of a coursework, a practical experiment, and a set of micro-learning sessions (i.e., training class to preserve a certification or qualification, ¶ 0162).
As per claim 5, Woodings et al disclose the said set of criteria includes at least one parameter from any or a combination of general domain knowledge, project-specific knowledge, behavioral attributes, and compliance knowledge (i.e., One icon represents the worker's compliance with regard to system wide requirements; the other symbolizes the workers compliance with regard to the job and work type requirements, ¶ 0401).
As per claim 6, Woodings et al disclose said each of the plurality of human resource profiles includes the identity of the human resource, time durations of availability of human resource to engage in a project, pay-rate, and at least one parameter indicating any or a combination of general domain knowledge, behavioral attributes, and compliance knowledge of a human resource (i.e., This logical part allows scheduling in relation to the workers' availability, qualifications and skills, and the requirements associated with a job, ¶ 0415).
Claims 9-14 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1-6, respectively, since they are the system claims corresponding to the method claims.
As per claim 18, Woodings et al disclose wherein filtering discards the human resource profiles whose availability falls outside the project schedule criteria or whose geographic location is incompatible with the project criteria, prior to computing the compatibility rating, thereby reducing computational load (i.e., WMS shows the end user workers' schedules including but not limited to how many hours the worker has been assigned for a particular day or week and which workers were not assigned for that or another particular day or week. The end user can view the schedule for the upcoming week, and which worker has been assigned to which job, how many hours the workers have been assigned for, and view worker availability in the list until they have been assigned to 40 hours (or any defined number of hours) and for which job(s). Once the worker has reached a set number of hours, the name of this worker is no longer on the list of available workers, ¶ 0141).
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.
Claims 7, 8, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodings et al (US 20040267595 A1), in view of Chaturvedi et al (US 20130311222 A1), in further view of Cooper et al (US 20100100561 A1).
As per claim 7, Woodings et al disclose a computer implemented process for facilitating an insurance policy procurement for a project assignment (i.e., a large portion of the budget for each project is for labor and insurance to cover the labor, ¶ 0147), the process comprising:
identifying a plurality of human resources seeking project assignments and insurance (i.e., Therefore, when a worker is assigned/scheduled to the job, the following information may be displayed for the job: work type (which generates an accurate workers compensation expense), the cost of an individual, the average cost of the group assigned, ¶ 0147);
receiving, by a computing system, profiles of each of the plurality of human resources by assessing a data source, each profile including an identity of the human resource, and at least one parameter indicating any or a combination of skills and compliance status and corresponding proficiency level (i.e., The end user can view the schedule for the upcoming week, and which worker has been assigned to which job, how many hours the workers have been assigned for, and view worker availability, ¶ 0141, The list displays the workers' compliance for the job and work type on the job as well as overall company compliance via color coded icons that check for document expiration, missing documents, incomplete documents, missing skills, ¶ 0400);
receiving, by the computing system, data indicating a set of criteria for the project, wherein the criteria include any or a combination of skills, compliance requirements, working conditions and an estimated schedule (i.e., The WMS allows the user to enter any possible scenario to locate a specific type of worker based on any criteria in the system and returns a list of workers who meet the criteria, ¶ 0243);
the rating reused across insurance provider interactions, thereby reducing computational load by avoiding repeated model evaluations (i.e., A detailed worker compensation reporting functionality allows the end user to provide the insurance auditor with a detailed report of the workers' exact activities, ¶ 0166);
automatically mapping and displaying, by the computing system, the human resources of the plurality of human resources on a chart, based on the criteria for the project assignment (i.e., Job Management is a powerful module that enables the user to take complete control of the execution and monitoring of their jobs sites. This module allows the user to match skills and qualifications with predefined job requirements set by work types allowing precise cost association to be determined for a project, ¶ 0349).
Woodings et al does not disclose the computing system generated quality rating of the human resource, wherein the quality rating is generated using a multivariate model configured to use the values of the profile parameters, including the proficiency levels, wherein the quality rating is computed once per human resource.
Chaturvedi et al disclose the dashboard display interface displays a daily summary of the key result areas addressed by the organizational group, an error status of the organizational group, etc. The organization management platform generates, for example, a six sigma score that measures quality of performance of each of the employees of the organizational group (¶ 0068, Figures 8 and 9).
Additionally, Woodings et al does not disclose the chart being viewable by the one or more insurance providers; receiving insurance quote for each of the human resources from at least one insurance provider, in response to a determination by the provider to insure a respective human resource; presenting, by the computing system, the available insurance quotes and associated parameters to the respective human resources; prompting, via a user interface generated by the computing system, the one or more human resources to select the insurance quote for procurement; and notifying the selected insurance provider by at least one of: a user interface generated by the computing system; and transmitting a digital insurance selection confirmation through an electronic interface.
Cooper et al disclose data being imported or exported can be effective dated. Exported data may include effective dates represented as portions of a record for use by third parties such as insurance providers (¶ 0162). The `My Wealth` 908 service may provide the employee with applications related to financial services such as deposit account (e.g., facilities, statements), beneficiary and compensation benefits (e.g., bonus, overtime payments), life insurance (e.g., premiums), disability compensations, payroll statements, and some other types of financial services. For example, through `My Wealth` 908 service, the employee may be able to access the monthly statement regarding the compensation and benefits accrued or the employee may be able to directly submit premium payments for medical or life insurance through this service (¶ 0200). Payroll department, Human Resource Information System (HRIS), and third parties such as insurance companies are the entities that may interact through this service (¶ 0201).
Selecting medical coverage may access a medical coverage elections screen, as in FIG. 32. Elections may be eligibility-based. For example, the employee may choose to waive coverage or they may choose from at least one option for medical insurance. The costs for the medical insurance plans may be displayed to the employee for various coverage types, such as employee only, employee plus one, family plan, and the like (¶ 0282).
Woodings et al, Chaturvedi et al and Cooper et al are concerned with effective workforce management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the computing system generated quality rating of the human resource, wherein the quality rating is generated using a multivariate model configured to use the values of the profile parameters, including the proficiency levels, and the chart being viewable by the one or more insurance providers; receiving insurance quote for each of the human resources from at least one insurance provider, in response to a determination by the provider to insure a respective human resource; presenting, by the computing system, the available insurance quotes and associated parameters to the respective human resources; prompting, via a user interface generated by the computing system, the one or more human resources to select the insurance quote for procurement; and notifying the selected insurance provider by at least one of: a user interface generated by the computing system; and transmitting a digital insurance selection confirmation through an electronic interface in Woodings et al, as seen in Chaturvedi et al and Cooper et al, respectively, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 8, Woodings et al disclose assessing the plurality of human resources for the project requirement gaps (i.e., the system will analyze the available work force and return a list of workers meeting the skill and qualification requirements. In addition, the list can be expanded to show workers who did not qualify and why, so the issues can be resolved, ¶ 0151); providing training to the human resources for fulfilling the requirement gaps based on the assessment; re-assessing the trained human resources for any one or combination of updated skills and compliance knowledge; updating the human resource profiles based on the re-assessment results (i.e., qualification update report is a report that details which updates each worker has been assigned to. From any document review screen, a worker can be scheduled to take an update, this includes but is not limited to scheduling for training, ¶ 0341); and updating the insurance quotes based on the updated human resource profiles (i.e., The ability to provide precise workers' compensation audits with precise job information enables the user to greatly reduce the likelihood of insurance companies overcharging for the premium. Furthermore, it gives the user the ability to assemble documents for audits that typically take days to assemble. This allows businesses to gain control of their workers compensation cost, ¶ 0497).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 7 and 8, respectively, since they are the system claims corresponding to the method claims.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodings et al (US 20040267595 A1), in view of Chaturvedi et al (US 20130311222 A1).
As per claim 17, Woodings et al does not disclose wherein the compatibility rating is computed by applying a weighted scoring algorithm that assigns numerical weights to each of a plurality of profile parameters based on relevance to project criteria.
Chaturvedi et al disclose the organization management platform assigns the weights according to the individual key result areas for the employee, for example, daily attendance of the employee, a level of competence reached by the employee in multiple organizational groups, etc. The organization management platform enables changing of the weights on the KRAs to allow the organization to react quickly to the needs of the organization (¶ 0055).
Woodings et al and Chaturvedi et al are concerned with effective workforce management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the compatibility rating is computed by applying a weighted scoring algorithm that assigns numerical weights to each of a plurality of profile parameters based on relevance to project criteria in Woodings et al, as seen in Chaturvedi et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant argues that the features of amended independent claims 1 and 7 cannot describe an abstract concept, or a concept similar to those found by the Courts to be Abstract, such as a certain method of organizing human activity. Advantageously, the present invention provides an improved method and system (i.e. meritocracy-based platform). The method provides better efficiency to enterprises by eliminating the administrative tasks associated with identifying talent, on-boarding for a work product, payments, timesheets and performance management, and replacing it with the automated system. This method helps to reduce resources needed, and the overall process is automated rather than manually performing the tasks.
Further, an application of the system for efficiently and automatically optimizing selection and assignment of a human resource to a project is used to solve problems such as (I) missing suitable candidates since skillset required in the suitable candidate by the client may not be analyzed accurately by the organization (II) tedious and a lengthy admin process for both the candidates and the client. Unlike the conventional methods, as claimed in amended independent claim 1, the present invention enables elimination of the administrative tasks associated with identifying talent, on-boarding for a work product, payments, timesheets, and performance management.
Further, the Applicants submit that the features "automatically filtering, mapping and displaying, by the computing system, the interested human resources on a chart, based on the criteria for the project, compatibility rating of the interested human resources, and the pav-rate of the interested human resources" cannot be performed by a human mind and cannot come under the method of organizing human activity. Additionally, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of a method and a system to hire users such as candidates.
As shown in at ¶¶ [0040], [0064]-[0069], [0080], [0088] of the specification, the present invention provides a solution to the problem of selecting a skilled human resource for a project and assigning the project based on the proficiency and skills of the human resource.
The claimed invention provides a smart and intelligent platform that analyses the skills of the candidates required for the projects. The system further selects the eligible candidates based on their skills and pay-rates and prepares a chart for the easy analysis of the chart for the enterprises. All the above-mentioned features of the system reduces resources and enhances the speed of hiring/contracting by connecting demand to smart supply characteristics.
Accordingly, the Applicant has shown teaching in the Specification that describes a practical implementation and how the technology is improved and has thus established a clear nexus between the claim language and the practical implementation of the alleged judicial exception, and improvements in the technology. Accordingly, the Applicants respectfully submit that the combination of the features of the amended independent claim 1 do not recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities since the combination of claimed features provides an improvement related to optimized selection and assignment of a human resource to the project.
Thus, the features of amended independent claims 1 and 7 do not describe an abstract concept, or a concept similar to those found by the Courts to be Abstract, such as certain methods of organizing human activity. At least, for this reason, the Applicants respectfully submit that amended independent claim 1 meets the standard for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Applicants submit that amended independent claims 7, and 9 recite inter alia features similar to those recited in amended independent claim 1. Therefore, the Applicants respectfully submit that taking all the claim elements of claims 1-16 individually, and in combination, as a whole amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Here, as described in ¶ 0036 of Applicant’s specification, “An aspect of the proposed invention comprises ensuring the ready supply of human resource (i.e., candidate) meets project-specific competency requirements, industry-, regulatory-, corporate-defined-, or a combination thereof compliance requirements, and soft-skills (e.g., attitude, professionalism, communication, etc.) requirements to accomplish at least four vital goals for the project:(1)Cost, (2)Quality, (3) Timeline, and (4) Compliance to a variety of requirements.”
Additionally, ¶ 0037 recites that “In a further aspect of the proposed invention a computer implemented method for optimizing selection and assignment of a human resource (i.e., candidate) to a project is provided, which identifies the project associated with an organization requiring at least one human resource (i.e., candidate) with a set of criteria and availability at a particular time, for a particular duration; the method creates and manages a plurality of user profiles of individuals based on the above criteria, identifies at least one available human resource at the particular time, for the particular duration, closely meeting the mentioned set of criteria; the method further assesses the available human resource options in at least one project-specific critical skill via a computer-generated assessment method; the method also assigns or awards the project to the selected human resource; and also updates the user profiles based on the assessment results.”
Moreover, paragraph 0045 recites that “In another aspect of the method of the proposed invention, there is a provision of receiving at least one insurance quote based on the profile of a human resource and requirements of a project from at least one insurance underwriter. The human resources can select the best insurance offer for the project and procure the selected insurance. The procurement transaction can take place on the said smart platform/system for available simplicity of the procurement, transparency of work performance, and overall governance to compliance to the terms and conditions.”
Following, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the specification and claim language is indeed directed to managing interactions between people, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com (Fed. Cir. 2014), is an example of additional elements other than those that are well‐understood, routine and conventional in the field. In that case, the claims were directed to systems and methods of generating a composite web page that combines certain visual elements of a host website with the content of a third‐party merchant. The court found that the claim had additional limitations that amounted to significantly more than the abstract idea. Namely, the claim recited that when a third party’s advertisement hyperlink was selected by a user on a host’s web page, the system would automatically identify the host web page, retrieve corresponding “look and feel” information from storage for the host web page and generate a hybrid web page including the merchant information from the third party web page with the “look and feel” elements of the host’s website. This was different from the conventional operation of Internet hyperlink protocol which would transport the user away from the host’s web page to the third party’s web page when the hyperlink is activated.
However, unlike the claims in DDR, which were necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks, the claims here have no additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Besides the abstract idea, the claims include a computing system, a user interface generated by the computing system, and an electronic interface.
The computing system, a user interface generated by the computing system, and an electronic interface in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l