Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on September 12, 2025, wherein claims 1-8 and 10-12 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC §101 discussion/response:
Applicant’s arguments regarding §101 rejection have been considered but examiner respectfully disagrees.
The main concept of the claims is towards allocating staff/workers for multiple restaurants based on restaurant crowdedness and functions. The information/parameters gathered/collected to make the determination as all non-technical abstract information. The prediction/forecasting is done using mathematical concepts and using abstract information comparing, analysis, and manipulation steps. There is no improvement shown in the claims to any technology, technical elements/devices, or any technical environment. The core concepts of the independent claims (1, 10, 11) and dependent claims (2-8) recite obtaining/collecting information/data (where the information is non-technical and abstract itself – e.g. employee information, crowdedness, etc.,), data analysis and manipulation to determine more non-technical abstract information/data ( including comparing information with targets (numerical), also using mathematical concepts, etc.,), and providing/displaying this determined information/data for further analysis/manipulation and decision-making. The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps (time analysis, predictions, statistical analysis, etc.,) to analyze and determine further data. The technical elements (discussed below) the Applicant has in the claims just point to generic/general purpose technical elements used in an “apply-it” fashion while no improvement to the technical environment itself or any technical element/device/component/computer is shown. The claims also point to the mathematical nature of the model as it is used for statistical purposes of forecasting/predicting (where the concept of forecasting/predicting due to possible events is old and well-known in the retail/restaurant industry). As mentioned in the previous Office action, the limitations of independent claims and dependent claims, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people – scheduling/assigning employees and following rules or instructions (based on calculated predictions and decision-making) in a commercial restaurant setting) and mathematical concepts (using mathematical concepts for predictions and matching, etc.,). The claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mathematical concepts grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the examiner also respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments. The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Applicant’s abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of, for example, distribution platform, hardware, storage unit, other “units,” transmitting information using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components,, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8, 12); processors/processing, information storage, units (various), transmitting/outputting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (in independent claim 10); and computer readable recording medium, program (generic software), storage unit (for information), units, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (independent claim 11), the claims encompass the above state abstract idea. As shown above, the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computers and computing components/elements/devices/etc., (for example, distribution platform, hardware, storage unit, other “units,” transmitting information using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components,, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8, 12); processors/processing, information storage, units (various), transmitting/outputting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (in independent claim 10); and computer readable recording medium, program (generic software), storage unit (for information), units, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (independent claim 11))) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general-purpose computer and computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). Applicant’s claims show no technical improvement to computer functionality (or any other technical functionality) and no improvement to any technical environment. And the courts have required the claims to be directed to an improvement in the functionality of the computer or network platform itself. See Ancora Techs. Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1347–49 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The CAFC has consistently stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool. For example, in Affinity Labs. of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, the CAFC held that claims to a method of providing out-of-region access to regional broadcasts were directed to an abstract idea. 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The CAFC determined the claims were not a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality because they simply used cellular telephones “as tools in the aid of a process focused on an abstract idea.” Id. at 1262; see also In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding ineligible claims reciting concrete physical components merely as “a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner.” The U.S. Supreme Court has described “the concern that drives this exclusionary principle [i.e., the exclusion of abstract ideas from patent eligible subject matter] as one of pre-emption.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 216. However, characterizing preemption as a driving concern for patent eligibility is not the same as characterizing preemption as the sole test for patent eligibility. As the courts have explained, “[t]he Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability,” and “[f]or this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 216). And, although “preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Id. Moreover, “[w]here a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the [Alice/Mayo] framework . . ., preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Id.; see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert, denied, 136 S. Ct. 701 (2015)(“[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less abstract.”). Further, Appellant’s claims are different from those claims that the Courts have found to be patent eligible by virtue of reciting technological improvements to a computer system. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1249, 1257 (holding that claims reciting computer processor for serving “composite web page” were patent eligible because “the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks”); Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that claims directed to “an improved computer memory system” having many benefits were patent eligible). In McRO1, the Federal Circuit concluded that the claim, when considered as a whole, was directed to a “technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques” through the “use [of] limited rules . . . specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316 (McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Specifically, the Federal Circuit found that the claimed rules allowed computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters that previously could only be produced by human animators; and the rules were limiting because they defined morph weight sets as a function of phoneme sub-sequences. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313. The present situation is not like the one in McRO where computers had been unable to make certain subjective determinations, e.g., regarding morph weight and phoneme timings, which could only be made prior to the claimed invention by human animators. The Background section of one of the patents at issue in McRO, Rosenfeld (US Patent 6,307,576 B1; issued Oct. 23, 2001), includes a description of the admitted prior art method and the shortcomings associated with that prior method. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1303-06. There is no comparable discussion in Appellant’s Specification or elsewhere of record. Further, as the Federal Circuit has explained, a “claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even assuming the technique claimed was “[groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” that would not be enough for the claimed abstract idea to be patent eligible. See Ass ’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013). The independent claims and dependent claims do not recite an additional element or elements that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222 (“In holding that the process was patent ineligible, we rejected the argument that ‘implement[ing] a principle in some specific fashion’ will ‘automatically fal[l] within the patentable subject matter of § 101.”’ (Alterations in original) (quoting Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593 (1978))).
The generic/general-purpose computers and computing elements/terms/limitations (see list above) are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/ devices, etc., (see list above). The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers, models, and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Against this background, Applicant’s claims are not directed to a practical application and are not patent eligible as they remain an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Furthermore, under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), the recitations of the core inventive steps amount to little more than reciting that the computer system applies the abstract idea. Applicant’s claims are clearly focused on the combination of the above stated abstract-idea processes (see discussion above and in the rejection below) and not any particular assuredly inventive technology for performing those functions. The independent claims and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims recite using known and/or generic computing devices and software (for example, distribution platform, hardware, storage unit, other “units,” transmitting information using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components,, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8, 12); processors/processing, information storage, units (various), transmitting/outputting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (in independent claim 10); and computer readable recording medium, program (generic software), storage unit (for information), units, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (independent claim 11))). The independent claims and dependent claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea and do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The core limitations of the independent claims and dependent claims require no more than the above listed known and/or generic computing devices and software functions and, without more, this is insufficient to transform them into patent-eligible applications of the abstract idea at their core. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 2360; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, figs. 17-18 ¶¶ 0065-0078 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The independent claims and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements or combination of elements in the independent claims and dependent claims other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the independent claims and dependent claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the independent claims and dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
Also see the §101 rejection below.
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 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-8 are directed to a data distribution platform/system (i.e. machine), 10 is directed to a method (i.e., process), and claim 11 is directed to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. product or article of manufacture). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claims (1, 10, 11) and dependent claims (2-8, 12) recite obtaining/collecting information/data (where the information is non-technical and abstract itself – e.g. employee information, crowdedness, etc.,), data analysis and manipulation to determine more non-technical abstract information/data ( including comparing information with targets (numerical), also using mathematical concepts, etc.,), and providing/displaying this determined information/data for further analysis/manipulation and decision-making. The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps (predicting, time analysis, ranges/limitation determinations and comparisons, etc.,) to analyze and determine further data. The limitations of the independent claims (1, 10, 11) and dependent claims (2-8, 12), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people – scheduling/assigning employees and following rules or instructions (based on calculated predictions and decision-making) in a commercial restaurant setting) and mathematical concepts (using mathematical concepts for predictions and matching, etc.,). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations then it falls within the Mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mathematical concepts grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of, for example, distribution platform, hardware, storage unit, other “units,” transmitting information using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components,, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8, 12); processors/processing, information storage, units (various), transmitting/outputting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (in independent claim 10); and computer readable recording medium, program (generic software), storage unit (for information), units, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (independent claim 11) in the context of the claims, the claims (independent claims (1, 10, 11) and dependent claims (2-8, 12)) encompass the above stated abstract idea (organizing human activity (managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people – scheduling/assigning employees and following rules or instructions (based on calculated predictions and decision-making) in a commercial restaurant setting) and mathematical concepts (using mathematical concepts for predictions and matching, etc.,)). As shown above, the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computers and computing elements/components/etc., which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general-purpose computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The limitations and term reciting generic/general-purpose computers and computing elements/components/etc., are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above stated abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/ devices, etc. The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claims (1, 10, 11) and dependent claims (2-8, 12) do not include additional elements (which are for example, distribution platform, hardware, storage unit, other “units,” transmitting information using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components,, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8, 12); processors/processing, information storage, units (various), transmitting/outputting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (in independent claim 10); and computer readable recording medium, program (generic software), storage unit (for information), units, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (independent claim 11)) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The independent and dependent claims recite using known and/or generic/general-purpose computers and computing elements/components/etc., and software. For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, figs. 17-18 ¶¶ 0065-0078 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements or combination of elements in the independent claims and dependent claims other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the independent claims and dependent claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the independent claims and dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The above rejection includes and details the discussion of dependent claims and the above rejection applies to all the dependent claim limitations. In summary, the dependent claims further state using obtained data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature), data analysis and manipulation to determine more non-technical abstract information/data ( including comparing information with targets (numerical), also using mathematical concepts, etc.,), and providing/displaying this determined information/data for further analysis/manipulation and decision-making. The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further data. These claims are directed towards organizing human activity (managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people – scheduling/assigning employees and following rules or instructions (based on calculated predictions and decision-making) in a commercial restaurant setting) and mathematical concepts (using mathematical concepts for predictions and matching, etc.,). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing components/elements/etc., (which are for example, distribution platform, hardware, storage unit, other “units,” transmitting information using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components,, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8, 12); processors/processing, information storage, units (various), transmitting/outputting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (in independent claim 10); and computer readable recording medium, program (generic software), storage unit (for information), units, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (independent claim 11)) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04 and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The dependent claims also merely recites post-solution/extra-solution activities (with generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing components/devices/etc.,). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements. Also, the dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the juridical exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself. See further discussion above.
Prior art discussion (not a prior art rejection – but remains rejected under §101 above)
As per the independent claims 1, 10, and 11, the closet prior art are Tanaka et al., (US 2016/0342929) and Chakraborty et al., (US 8,669,845). However, neither Tanaka nor Chakraborty (the closet prior art) disclose acquire a target crowdedness level of a restaurant among a plurality of restaurants… calculate a predicted crowdedness level of each restaurant…extract…a restaurant of which the predicted crowdedness level is lower than the target crowdedness level…extract…an employee who can use the restaurant extracted by the restaurant extraction unit (claim 1); and for claims 11 and 10 acquiring a target crowdedness level of a restaurant among a plurality of restaurants…calculating a predicted crowdedness level of each restaurant…extracting, from a store information storage unit, a restaurant of which the predicted crowdedness level is lower than the target crowdedness level…extracting…an employee who can go to the extracted restaurant. Additionally, given the specific ordered combination of the claim elements in the independent claims cannot be found in the prior art (including art cited in PTO-892) and can only be found in Applicant’s Specification. The prior art of record (including art cite on PTO-892) does not teach or suggest (the reference individually or in combination) Applicant’s current independent claims as a whole (it is the entire claimed concept described by the limitations collectively coming together that is not rejected under prior art (the core concept is shown in the claim as a whole — limitations organized in the specific form and coming together collectively to form the concept)). Furthermore, any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all of the claim elements would not be obvious and would result in impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
As per the dependent claims, these claims depend on the independent claims above and incorporate the limitations thereof, and are therefore not rejected under prior art for at least the same rationale as applied to the independent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Note that all the claims are still rejected under §101 rejection and are therefore not allowable.
Also:
As per claim 3, Tanaka in view of Chakraborty discloses the data distribution platform according to Claim 2, but neither Tanaka nor Chakraborty (the closet prior art) disclose the narrower dependent claim 3 limitation of wherein an employee who can use a restaurant for which there is a time period during which the predicted crowdedness level is lower than the target crowdedness level in that time period is an employee whose scheduled workplace-leaving time is within or close to the time period during which the predicted crowdedness level is lower than the target crowdedness level in that time period.
As per claim 4, Tanaka in view of Chakraborty discloses the data distribution platform according to Claim 2, but neither Tanaka nor Chakraborty (the closet prior art) disclose the narrower dependent claim 4 limitation of wherein an employee who can use a restaurant for which there is a time period during which the predicted crowdedness level is lower than the target crowdedness level in that time period is an employee whose scheduled break time is within or close to the time period during which the predicted crowdedness level is lower than the target crowdedness level in that time period.
As per claim 7, Tanaka in view of Chakraborty discloses the data distribution platform according to Claim 2, but neither Tanaka nor Chakraborty (the closet prior art) disclose the narrower dependent claim 4 limitation of coupon acquisition unit implemented at least by the hardware and configured to acquire a coupon transmitted from a restaurant that has received the matching result, and coupon providing unit implemented at least by the hardware and configured to transmit the coupon acquired by the coupon acquisition unit to a corporation where the employee who has been matched to the restaurant that has transmitted the coupon works.
As per claim 8, Tanaka in view of Chakraborty discloses the data distribution platform according to Claim 2, but neither Tanaka nor Chakraborty (the closet prior art) disclose the narrower dependent claim 4 limitation of use record reporting unit implemented at least by the hardware and configured to transmit the record of use of the restaurant acquired by the use record acquisition unit to a corporation where the employee, who has been matched to the restaurant that has transmitted the record of use and has used that restaurant while presenting the coupon, works.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, following are some of the pertinent art:
Chen et al., (US 11,610,670): Provide dynamic generation and display of workstation assignments in a pharmacy information system. A plurality of electronic workstation displays are in network communication with a workstation assignment engine configured to generate workstation assignments for employees assigned to the workstations displays and store a schedule record. Based on various triggers, workstations identified in the workstation assignments display the workstation assignments on a graphical user interface portion of the workstation displays. Dynamically generated changes to the workstation assignments in the schedule record may be generated and displayed in response to real-time change in coverage events.
Vanslette et al., (US 2017/0039661): Discusses a technologically improved system and corresponding method of operation tracks and manages activities and tasks occurring at an activity venue. In particular, the system operates to track locations and pace of play or participation of the patrons at the activity venue and through various improved technological processes and interactions enabled by the unique hardware of the system, provide the patrons with feedback to manage their locations for an improved participation experience. Furthermore, the system leverages collected information and data to enable live traffic control of the patrons, provide predictive analytics related to gameplay and flow of traffic, and provide operators and patrons with information necessary to maximize a pace of place while optimally maintaining the venue around the patrons without interruption to the patrons and thereby improve the experience of the patrons at the activity venue.
Galvin (US 8,386,639): Provides for optimized and distributed resource management, comprising a plurality of media servers, a statistics server, a historical statistics database, a forecasting engine, a scheduling engine, and an activity manager. The forecasting engine generates a forecast of estimated volume of imperative demand and determines a required volume of contingent demand to be handled based on managing a backlog of contingent demand. The scheduling engine generates a schedule that provides an adequate number of resources to handle the forecasted imperative demand and to handle the required volume of contingent demand over an aggregated time. The activity manager monitors statistical data, compares actual staffing and imperative demand to scheduled staffing and forecasted imperative demand, and determines activity switches needed to reallocate available resources, the activity switches only occurring switched after a configured minimum activity switching time.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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.
/Gurkanwaljit Singh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625