DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed 05/18/2026.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant submits on page 16 of the remarks that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that if a claim limitation covers observations or evaluations then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant submits on page 17 of the remarks that the claims are integrated into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the present claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a matter that imposes meaningful limit to the judicial exception.
Applicant submits on page 19 of the remarks that the claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees, when determining whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B the analysis takes into consideration whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines." Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 658, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972)). See MPEP 2106.05(c). Furthermore, the additional elements recited in the claims merely recite the use of a generic computer to perform generic computer functions of storing and transmitting data. These generic computer functions do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Objections
Claims 1/10/12 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “…from among a plurality cryptographic hash codes…” and should recite “…from among a plurality of cryptographic hash codes…” Appropriate correction 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-20, the independent claims (claims 1, 10 and 19) are directed, in part, to a method and computer embodiments for employee identification and data augmentation. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-9 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process, claims 10-18 are directed to a computing device, which falls under the statutory category of a machine, and claims 19-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium which falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to aggregating, by the at least one processor via an application programming interface, employee data from at least one source according to a predetermined schedule, the employee data including at least one data element, wherein the aggregating of employee data includes processing the employee data to generate a structured data set by converting the employee data from a plurality of different file formats into a singular compatible file format, wherein the plurality of different file formats include various employee repositories, and wherein the singular compatible file format includes a file-system cataloging structure that references other computer files; associating, by the at least one processor, the at least one data element with a corresponding employee; accessing, by the at least one processor via an application programming interface (API), the secured repository, wherein the API facilitates a connection with the secured repository by defining at least one interaction protocol, wherein the secured repository includes a blockchain-based distributed ledger having a plurality of blocks, wherein each respective block of the plurality of blocks includes respective data from the employee data, and wherein each block of the plurality of blocks utilizes a respective cryptographic hash code from among a plurality cryptographic hash codes; storing, by the at least one processor, the association and the at least one data element in the secured repository, wherein the storing operation includes electronically storing the association between the at least one data element and the corresponding employee in a computer system corresponding to the secured repository; controlling, by the at least one processor via a data management interface, at least one from among data creation, data reading, data updating, and data deleting operations in the secured repository: safeguarding, by the at least one processor, the at least one data element stored in the secured repository by the application programming interface, which imposes at least one from among a file export limitation and a data export limitation to limit access to the at least one data element stored in the secured repository receiving, by the at least one processor, an indication that at least one telecommunication interaction has been initiated, between a plurality of participants, one of the participants corresponding to an employee whose at least one data element is stored in the secured repository along with the association between the at least one data element and the corresponding employee; retrieving, by the at least one processor via an application programming interface, from the secured repository, the at least one data element of the employee corresponding to one of the participants in the telecommunication interaction in response to the receiving operation, wherein the retrieving from the secured repository includes an interaction protocol that limits access to the secured repository by the application programming interface; identifying in real-time, by the at least one processor, the at least one data element of the employee corresponding to the one of the participants in the telecommunication interaction based on the association stored in the secured repository; and automatically augmenting, by the at least one processor, an interaction record of the telecommunication interaction with the identified at least one data element. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite the additional elements: secured repository, processor, application programming interface, computing device, memory, communication interface, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1 and 2 and related text and [0040-0041] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the computer system 102 may include at least one processor 104. The processor 104 is tangible and non-transitory. As used herein, the term "non-transitory" is to be interpreted not as an eternal characteristic of a state, but as a characteristic of a state that will last for a period of time. The term "non-transitory" specifically disavows fleeting characteristics such as characteristics of a particular carrier wave or signal or other forms that exist only transitorily in any place at any time. The processor 104 is an article of manufacture and/or a machine component. The processor 104 is configured to execute software instructions in order to perform functions as described in the various embodiments herein. The processor 104 may be a general-purpose processor or may be part of an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC). The processor 104 may also be a microprocessor, a microcomputer, a processor chip, a controller, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor (DSP), a state machine, or a programmable logic device. The processor 104 may also be a logical circuit, including a programmable gate array (PGA) such as a field programmable gate array (FPGA), or another type of circuit that includes discrete gate and/or transistor logic. The processor 104 may be a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), or both. Additionally, any processor described herein may include multiple processors, parallel processors, or both. Multiple processors may be included in, or coupled to, a single device or multiple devices. The computer system 102 may also include a computer memory 106. The computer memory 106 may include a static memory, a dynamic memory, or both in communication. Memories described herein are tangible storage mediums that can store data and executable instructions, and are non-transitory during the time instructions are stored therein. Again, as used herein, the term "non-transitory" is to be interpreted not as an eternal characteristic of a state, but as a characteristic of a state that will last for a period of time. The term "non-transitory" specifically disavows fleeting characteristics such as characteristics of a particular carrier wave or signal or other forms that exist only transitorily in any place at any time. The memories are an article of manufacture and/or machine component. Memories described herein are computer-readable mediums from which data and executable instructions can be read by a computer. Memories as described herein may be random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), flash memory, electrically programmable read only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), registers, a hard disk, a cache, a removable disk, tape, compact disc read only memory (CD-ROM), digital versatile disc (DVD), floppy disk, blu-ray disc, or any other form of storage medium known in the art. Memories may be volatile or non-volatile, secure and/or encrypted, unsecure and/or unencrypted. Of course, the computer memory 106 may comprise any combination of memories or a single storage.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above. Although the closest prior art made of record US Pub. No. 2014/0229614 (Aggarwal) discloses systems and methods for facilitating automated participant identification through a unified communication data management system, the prior art does not specifically disclose the sequence of steps as recited in the claims: “…aggregating, by the at least one processor via an application programming interface, employee data from at least one source according to a predetermined schedule, the employee data including at least one data element, wherein the aggregating of employee data includes processing the employee data to generate a structured data set by converting the employee data from a plurality of different file formats into a singular compatible file format, wherein the plurality of different file formats include various employee repositories, and wherein the singular compatible file format includes a file-system cataloging structure that references other computer files…; “…associating, by the at least one processor, the at least one data element with a corresponding employee; storing, by the at least one processor, the association and the at least one data element in the secured repository, wherein the storing operation includes electronically storing the association between the at least one data element and the corresponding employee in a computer system corresponding to the secured repository…”.
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights