DETAILED ACTION
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 . 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.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are original claims 1-20, presented upon filing on 11 November 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 November 2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1-11 and 16-20 are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 12-15 are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection, with the rationales being based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106.
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) The “method” of claims 1-11 constitutes a process under 35 USC 101, and the “system” of claims 16-20 constitutes a machine under the statute. Accordingly, claims 1-11 and 16-20 meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The claims, however, fail to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below. Before further addressing claims 1-11 and 16-20 and the subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, claims 12-15 will be addressed.
Regarding claims 12-15 and Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, the claims fail to meet the criteria of Step 1 because the claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Per the Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media Memorandum of January 26, 2010, the claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claims, drawn to a “computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media,” covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media (or “non-volatile storage medium,” as claimed), particularly when the specification, as in the present application, only appears to address a few specific types of transitory signals per se (Specification, para. [0018]). (See MPEP 2111.01.) When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. (See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.) Claims, such as claims 12-15, drawn to such a storage medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments, may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. (Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 USC 101).) Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. (See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).) But claims 12-15, in their present form, fail to meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. It is possible that even if claims 12-15 are amended to recite “non-transitory,” the claims still may not meet the criteria for patent eligibility for the reasons claims 1-11 and 16-20 fail to meet the criteria. Those reasons are outlined in the paragraphs below.
Turning back now to claims 1-11 and 16-20, the next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Using independent claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“A method, comprising: receiving ... user input defining parameters of a project; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... receiving ... opt-in input from team members defined in the parameters of the project; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... retrieving, ... from ... data sources, data that corresponds to performance of tasks of the project by each of the team members; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... generating, ... based on the retrieved data, a respective contribution score of each of the team members; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... generating, ... based on the respective contribution scores of each of the team members, a respective allocation score of each of the team members; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... allocating ... an award to the team members based on the respective allocation scores of each of the team members.” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
The above-listed limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as: fundamental economic principles or practices in the form of determining or setting compensation for employees, contractors, and the like; commercial interactions related to providing compensation to employees, contractors, and the like; and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including employers, employees, contractors, and the like, which fall under the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Limitations of the claim also can be characterized as: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (e.g., the recited “receiving” and “retrieving” steps), and evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion (e.g., the recited “generating” and “allocating” steps), which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) Continuing to use independent claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following additional element limitations:
Performance of steps “by a processor set” or “by the processor set” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “data sources” including “electronic” ones - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The above-listed additional element limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, and mere automation of manual processes, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); mere data gathering in the form of obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify transactions and consulting and updating an activity log, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, independent claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. Further, claim 1 also fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B because at least some of the additional elements are analogous to: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-11, the claims depend from independent claim 1, and expand upon limitations introduced by claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. For example, the dependent claims recite abstract idea elements similar to the abstract idea elements of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “wherein the contribution score of a respective one of the team members is based on: quantity of contributions to the project by the respective one of the team members; and quality of contributions to the project by the respective one of the team members” of claim 2, the “wherein the quantity of work is determined based on an amount of content created by the respective one of the team members” of claim 3, the “wherein the quality of work is determined based on determined sentiment of communications corresponding to the respective one of the team member's performance on the project” of claim 4, the “further comprising determining the sentiment of the communications by analyzing the communications” of claim 5, the “wherein the parameters define: the team members; the ... data sources from which the data is obtained; and scoring rules used for determining the respective contribution scores of each of the team members” of claim 6, the “wherein the scoring rules comprise plural scoring rules and respective weighting values for each of the plural scoring rules” of claim 7, the “wherein one or more of the respective weighting values is based on a role of a stakeholder” of claim 8, the “further comprising generating a respective scoring and allocation report for each of the team members, wherein the scoring and allocation report for one of the team members includes: the contribution score of the team member; and the allocation score of the team member” of claim 10, and the “further comprising: receiving additional information from one of the team members; regenerating the respective contribution score of each of the team members based on the obtained data and the additional information; and regenerating the respective allocation score of each of the team members based on the regenerated contribution scores of each of the team members” of claim 11). The dependent claims recite further additional elements that are similar to the additional elements of claim 1, that fail to warrant eligibility for the same reasons as the additional elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “using content creating applications” of claim 3, the “using natural language processing” of claim 5, the “electronic” of claim 6, and the “wherein the electronic data sources include: one or more local software applications; one or more mail servers; one or more conferencing servers; one or more social collaboration servers; one or more cloud software applications; and one or more telephony application servers” of claim 9). Accordingly, claims 2-11 also are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 16-20, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1 and 3-6, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1 and 3-6. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1 and 3-6 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 16-20. Limitations recited by claims 16-20 that do not appear to have a counterpart in claims 1 and 3-6, such as the recited “system comprising: a processor set, one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable to” limitations of independent claim 16, fail to warrant a finding of eligibility, because such limitations amount to additional elements that fail to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B, for the same reasons as the additional elements of claims 1 and 3-6. Claims 16-20 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 10-12, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0320458 A1 to Loreto et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Loreto”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Loreto discloses the following limitations:
“A method, comprising: ...” - Loreto discloses, a “SYSTEM, METHOD” (title).
“... receiving, by a processor set, user input defining parameters of a project; ...” - Loreto discloses, “The system 100 benefits individual users by keeping a trusted and immutable record of their individual contributions to work projects” (para. [0037]), “FIG. 2 illustrates an information exchange workflow 200 according to one or more aspects of the disclosed subject matter. Personal contributions 205 can correspond to tracked information exchanges as user input. The personal contributions 205 can come from a web application 210 and/or an existing development software 215 with suitable APIs (e.g., API 220). Once the input is received (e.g., the personal contributions 205 via the web-app 210 and/or development software 215), the contributions can be sent to the server 105” (para. [0038]), and “The hardware elements in order to achieve the server 105 may be realized by various circuitry elements. Further, each of the functions of the above described embodiments may be implemented by circuitry, which includes one or more processing circuits. A processing circuit includes a particularly programmed processor, for example, processor (CPU) 1200, as shown in FIG. 12” (para. [0089]). Receiving, by the processing circuits, user inputs in the form of personal contributions, corresponding to tracked information exchanges, to work projects, in Loreto, discloses the recited limitation.
“... receiving, by the processor set, opt-in input from team members defined in the parameters of the project; ...” - See the aspects of Loreto that have been cited above. Receiving, by the processing circuits, the user inputs corresponding to contributions to work projects, in Loreto, reads on the recited limitation.
“... retrieving, by the processor set and from electronic data sources, data that corresponds to performance of tasks of the project by each of the team members; ...” - See the aspects of Loreto that have been cited above. Retrieving, by the processing circuits from web applications and development software, user inputs corresponding to individual contributions to work projects, in Loreto, reads on the recited limitation.
“... generating, by the processor set and based on the retrieved data, a respective contribution score of each of the team members; ...” - See the aspects of Loreto that have been cited above. Loreto also discloses, “In S915, the server 105 can determine a level of contribution of each contributor (the level of contribution can be confirmed using the blockchain, thus securing the level of contribution from being manipulated maliciously, as further described herein). The information exchange transaction can be processed at any time to determine the level of contribution. The level of contribution can be determined through information tracked throughout the information exchange. In other words, based on information about the transactions, the level of contribution can be calculated” (para. [0068]). Generating, by the processing circuits and based on the user inputs, the level of contribution of each contributor to the work projects, in Loreto, reads on the recited limitation.
“... generating, by the processor set and based on the respective contribution scores of each of the team members, a respective allocation score of each of the team members; ...” - See the aspects of Loreto that have been cited above. Loreto also discloses, “In S920, each contributor can be awarded based on their level of contribution determined in S915” (para. [0069]). Generating, by the processing circuits and based on the determined level of contribution of each contributor to the work project, the award for each contributor, in Loreto, reads on the recited limitation.
“... allocating, by the processor set, an award to the team members based on the respective allocation scores of each of the team members.” - See the aspects of Loreto that have been cited above. Loreto also discloses, “the accurate determination of contribution can also be awarded in practical ways like royalty payouts in music industry, for example. In other words, the award can correspond to a payment of money/coins, an acknowledgment of contributions, a share in the resulting object (e.g., royalties for a song)” (para. [0069]). Allocating, by the processing circuits, payments, acknowledgements, shares, and the like, to contributors, based on the determined contributions and associated awarding for the contributions put forth by the contributors, in Loreto, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 6, Loreto discloses the following limitations:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the parameters define: the team members; ...” - See the aspects of Loreto that have been cited above. The users that make contributions to work projects, in Loreto, read on the recited limitation. See user ID aspects in para. [0072] of Loreto.
“... the electronic data sources from which the data is obtained; and ...” - See the aspects of Loreto that have been cited above. The web application and other sources from which user inputs are obtained, in Loreto, read on the recited limitation.
“... scoring rules used for determining the respective contribution scores of each of the team members.” - See the aspects of Loreto that have been cited above. The instructions for determining levels of contributions of users to work projects, in Loreto, read on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Loreto discloses the following limitations:
“The method of claim 1, further comprising generating a respective scoring and allocation report for each of the team members, wherein the scoring and allocation report for one of the team members includes: the contribution score of the team member; and the allocation score of the team member.” - See the aspects of Loreto that have been cited above. Loreto also discloses, “User Ranking - This Week,” “Transaction Statistics,” “User Ranking - All Time,” and “Total Transactions” (FIG. 6), and “the reward (K*) can be sent immediately after appending the transaction information to the database+blockchain. In this case, the user receiving the information can reward the sender of information with a coin (K*). This reward may not be based on the other transactions stored in the database/blockchain. The information in the database can then at a later point be used to calculate a different type of “award” like a reputation rating and transaction statistics” (para. [0075]). The display including user rankings and transactions statistics relating to rewards for levels of contribution, in Loreto, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Loreto discloses the following limitations:
“The method of claim 10, further comprising: receiving additional information from one of the team members; regenerating the respective contribution score of each of the team members based on the obtained data and the additional information; and regenerating the respective allocation score of each of the team members based on the regenerated contribution scores of each of the team members.” - See the aspects of Loreto that have been cited above. Continued operation of the system, upon receiving any additional user inputs in connection with their contributions, resulting in changes or other upates to their levels of contribution to work projects, awards, and payments, in Loreto, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding independent claim 12, while the claim is of different scope relative to independent claim 1, the claim recites limitations similar to those recited by claim 1. As such, the rationales applied to reject claim 1 also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 12. Limitations recited by claim 12 that do not appear to have a counterpart in claim 1, such as the preamble limitations of claim 12, are disclosed by Loreto (see paras. [0086] and [0087]). Claim 12 is, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Loreto.
Regarding claims 16 and 20, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1, 6, and 12, the claims recite limitations similar to those recited by claims 1, 6, and 12. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1, 6, and 12 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 16 and 20. Claims 16 and 20 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Loreto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 3, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loreto, in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2019/0122152 A1 to McCoy et al. (hereinafter referred to as “McCoy”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Loreto and McCoy (hereinafter referred to as “Loreto/McCoy”) teaches limitations below that do not appear to be disclosed in their entirety by Loreto:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the contribution score of a respective one of the team members is based on: quantity of contributions to the project by the respective one of the team members; and quality of contributions to the project by the respective one of the team members.” - See the aspects of Loreto that have been cited above. McCoy discloses, “The system still further includes a processor-implemented compensation module that tracks contributions to the contribution module made by each creator and determines compensation based on an amount and/or perceived quality or worth of work each creator puts into creating the content” (para. [0003]). The tracking of contributions of creators based on amount of contribution and perceived quality or worth of the work of the creatoers, in McCoy, when applied in the context of determining contributions and awards, in Loreto, reads on the recited limitation.
McCoy discloses, “A system in which people with different skills collaboratively work together build creative content each by contributing the type of work that he or she is best at” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Loreto. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the contribution and award aspects, of Loreto, to include consideration of amount and perceived quality or worth, as in McCoy, “to compensate content creators based on the value of their contributions to a piece of content,” per McCoy (para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 3, Loreto/McCoy teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 2, wherein the quantity of work is determined based on an amount of content created by the respective one of the team members using content creating applications.” - See the aspects of Loreto and McCoy that have been cited above. Considering the amount of content created by the creator, in McCoy, wherein the creator is one of the users contributing to the work project using the web application, in Loreto, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 2, also apply to this rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 2 and 3, the claims recite limitations similar to those recited by claims 2 and 3. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 2 and 3 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 13 and 14. Claims 13 and 14 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Loreto/McCoy.
Regarding claim 17, while the claim is of different scope relative to claims 3 and 14, the claim recites limitations similar to those recited by claims 3 and 14. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 3 and 14 also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 17. Claim 17 is, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Loreto/McCoy.
Claims 4, 5, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loreto, in view of McCoy, and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0330303 A1 to Mosley et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Mosley”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Loreto, McCoy, and Mosley (hereinafter referred to as “Loreto/McCoy/Mosley”) teaches limitations below that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by Loreto/McCoy:
“The method of claim 2, wherein the quality of work is determined based on determined sentiment of communications corresponding to the respective one of the team member's performance on the project.” - See the aspects of Loreto and McCoy that have been cited above. Loreto also discloses, “Additionally, the software includes a chat window. The system 100 can record all information corresponding to exchange 805 (e.g., contributions, communications, metadata (author, time), etc.) via the API 220, for example, and store the information in a conventional database (e.g., the database 120)” (para. [0057]), “various development software 215 can be used with the system 100 to record the collective creative process by securing the full sequence of actions in a blockchain-based immutable ledger. Additionally, users can be guided in their creative exploits by letting them navigate in real-time the complex structure of contributions” (para. [0058]). The determining of the perceived quality or worth of contributions of creators, in McCoy, being part of considering the exchanges from the chat windows of users making contributions to the work project, in Loreto, reads on the recited “wherein the quality of work is determined based on ... communications corresponding to the respective one of the team member's performance on the project” limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 2, also apply to this rejection of claim 4. Further, Mosley discloses, “The text analysis module 330 may operate based on detection of text input by the feedback generation module 320. The text analysis module 330 utilizes text analysis algorithms to analyze the actual content of feedback. The text analysis module 330 may derive information through information retrieval, lexical analysis, pattern recognition, tagging, information extraction, data mining techniques, visualization, and predictive analytics. The text analysis module 330 may utilize natural language processing in conjunction with the procedures identified above to achieve sentiment analysis and content analysis” (para. [0069]). Using the natural language processing for sentiment analysis, in Mosley, in the context of processing the contributions, in McCoy, reads on the recited “determined sentiment” limitation.
Mosley discloses, “promoting employee recognition” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Loreto/McCoy. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied, to the chat windows having exchanges and other contributions, in Loreto, for determining the perceived quality or worth of the contributions, in McCoy, the natural language processing and sentiment analysis aspects, of Mosley, as “The sentiment analysis may be nuanced an, in embodiments of the invention, gives more weight to certain strategic concepts as they exist in the organization database,” per Mosley (para. [0110]).
Regarding claim 5, Loreto/McCoy/Mosley teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 4, further comprising determining the sentiment of the communications by analyzing the communications using natural language processing.” - See the aspects of Mosley that have been cited above. Performing sentiment analysis on communications by analyzing them using natural language processing, in Mosley, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 4, also apply to this rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, while the claim is of different scope relative to claim 4, the claim recites limitations similar to those recited by claim 4. As such, the rationales applied to reject claim 4 also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 15. Claim 15 is, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Loreto/McCoy/Mosley.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 4, 5, and 15, the claim recites limitations similar to those reicted by claims 4, 5, and 15. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 4, 5, and 15 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 18 and 19. Claims 18 and 19 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Loreto/McCoy/Mosley.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loreto, in view of U.S. Pat. No. 9,489,697 B1 to Guerrieri et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Guerrieri”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Loreto and Guerrieri (hereinafter referred to as “Loreto/Guerrieri”) teaches limitations below that do not appear to be disclosed in their entirety by Loreto:
“The method of claim 6, wherein the scoring rules comprise plural scoring rules and respective weighting values for each of the plural scoring rules.” - Guerrieri discloses, “determining a weighting for each contributed portion of software” (Abstract), and “The weighting may be based on the judge rating of the contribution item divided by the judge rating of the collaborative work” (col. 1, ll. 57-60). The weighting based on ratings of contribution items and collaborative works, in Guerrieri, reads on the recited limitation.
Guerrieri discloses, “determining a payment to a contributor” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Loreto. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the instructions for determining the levels of contribution of users to work projects, in Loreto, to include use of weighting based on various ratings, as in Guerrieri, to ensure appropriate proportionality of payments to contributors, per Guerrieri (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Loreto/Guerrieri teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 7, wherein one or more of the respective weighting values is based on a role of a stakeholder.” - See the aspects of Guerrieri that have been cited above. The weighting being based on ratings from judges, in Guerrieri, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 7, also apply to this rejeciton of claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loreto, in view of Guerrieri, and further in view of Mosley.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Loreto, Guerrieri, and Mosley teaches limitations below that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by Loreto/Guerrieri:
“The method of claim 6, wherein the electronic data sources include: one or more local software applications; ...” - See the aspects of Loreto that have been cited above. The web applications, in Loreto, read on the recited limitation.
“... one or more mail servers; ...” - Mosley discloses, “The interactive system 10 may be a web or application server that includes a processor and memory (e.g., the storage system 150). The interactive system 10 may also be embodied in software executed by a processor on a server.” (para. [0057]), and “Participants may optionally be notified via email, text message, or other messaging software, of the presence of feedback” (para. [0071]). The server associated with the email notifications, in Mosley, reads on the recited limitation.
“... one or more conferencing servers; ...” - See the aspects of Loreto that have been cited above. Loreto also discloses, “The system 100 can include a server 105” (para. [0024]), “The server 105 can represent one or more servers” (para. [0025]), and “The web application 210 can capture various types of interactions including one to one interactions, talks, seminars, lectures, group meetings” (para. [0050]). The server(s) for web applications associated with group meetings, in Loreto, read(s) on the recited limitation.
“... one or more social collaboration servers; ...” - See the aspects of Loreto that have been cited above. The server(s) for web applications associated with one to one interactions, in Loreto, read(s) on the recited limitation.
“... one or more cloud software applications; and ...” - See the aspects of Loreto that have been cited above. Loreto also discloses, “the server 105 can be implemented in a cloud-based computing system” (para. [0098]). The web application being implemented in the cloud-based computing system, in Loreto, reads on the recited limitation.
“... one or more telephony application servers.” - See the aspects of Loreto that have been cited above. Loreto also discloses, “The functions and features described herein may also be executed by various distributed components of a system. For example, one or more processors may execute these system functions, wherein the processors are distributed across multiple components communicating in a network. The distributed components may include one or more client and server machines, which may share processing, in addition to various human interface and communication devices (e.g., display monitors, smart phones” (para. [0097]). The web application being implemented on smart phones using the sever, in Loreto, reads on the recited limitation.
Mosley discloses, “promoting employee recognition” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Loreto/Guerrieri. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used, as servers for communications, servers for messages, in Loreto, the email servers, of Mosley, as the messages and emails in the references are forms of communication with art recognized equivalence (see MPEP 2144.06), per Mosley (see para. [0071]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes the following:
CN Pat. App. Pub. No. 115033265 A to Li discloses, “an open source software contributor data processing method and device, the open source software project is disposed on a plurality of code managed platform, the method comprises: obtaining the code updating data corresponding to each code hosting platform; wherein the code updating data is the data sent to the preset call-back URL in real time when the webhook monitored by the webhook configured on each code hosting platform pushes the code to the open source software project on each code hosting platform; based on code updating data corresponding to each code hosting platform, real-time counting contribution data corresponding to each contributor to obtain contribution score, so as to display contribution score of each contributor. In the method, the open source software item is deployed on a plurality of code managed platform, at the same time, the contribution data of the open source software can be counted and displayed in time.” (English-language abstract.)
Pearsall, Matthew J., Michael S. Christian, and Aleksander PJ Ellis. "Motivating interdependent teams: Individual rewards, shared rewards, or something in between?." Journal of Applied Psychology 95.1 (2010): 183.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS Y HO whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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 YIH HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624