DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed May 28th, 2025. Claims 1, 3, 6, 10, and 20 have been amended. Claims 5, 11, and 18 have been cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19-21 are presented for examination.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/28/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 5/28/25, with respect to claim 3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 3/11/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 filed 5/28/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 12-18 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims present statutory subject matter. Beginning on page 14, regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, Applicant argues that amended claim 1 provides an improvement to a technical field. First, Applicant argues “unlike previous systems, the platform can selectively push orders to only certain workers mostly likely to complete the orders and expand the data transmitted as the deadline to complete the order nears, thereby striking a computationally advantageous balance between (i) minimizing network traffic load and use of computational resources with (ii) ensuring that time- sensitive tasks requiring coordination between the platform and mobile devices are completed.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and begins by citing MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) regarding ‘Improvements to Any Other Technology or Technical Field’, “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Therefore, regarding Applicants (ii) point, the ensuring of completed tasks is not an improvement to the technical field as the argued improvement is directly tied to the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Additionally, Examiner asserts that the above advantages are not guaranteed. For example, regarding (i) if amended claim 1 is executed to completion, the load of the network and computer resources are increased to support the transmission of additional push notifications to additional workers. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
On pages 14-15 of the provided remarks, Applicant cites Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., 879 F. 3d 1299, 1305-06 (Fed. Cir. 2018) for support of the argued improvement to a technical field. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the argued case is not analogous to the claimed invention. While Applicant points to the argument that Finjan presented “specific steps … that accomplish the result”, these specific steps argued resulted in “A method that generates a security profile that identifies both hostile and potentially hostile operations, and can protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and "obfuscated code," which is an improvement over traditional virus scanning.” This provided a specific improvement to the functioning of a computer that is not present in the amended claims. The claimed “A work management platform comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor; a mobile application installed on a mobile device; a mobile device of the matched worker; mobile devices of the additional workers; global position system (GPS) devices in mobile devices” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). Therefore, the argued case law is not analogous. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on page 15 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues, citing paragraphs [0039-40] from the provided Specification, “Such selective order offering of orders to only certain workers from a pool of available workers provides technical advantages over previous systems, such as saving computational resources by ultimately reducing the number of offers to track and by reducing the number of push notifications to send, because some offers will be accepted without the need to transmit additional push notifications.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the selective order offering of orders does not present an improvement to the technical field as the selection method is directed to the abstract idea of Mental Process. Per the Revised October 2019 guidance: in order to determine if an invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology and integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, while the courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, MPEP 2106.04(a) and 2106.05(a) provide guidance, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement; second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. When evaluating claim 1, as stated, if amended claim 1 is executed to completion, the load of the network and computer resources are increased to support the transmission of additional push notifications to additional workers. Therefore, the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement and the subsequent improvement is not to the technology but to the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
On pages 15-16 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended model training limitations improve model performance. Citing paragraphs [0129] and [0133] of the provided Specification, Applicant argues, “claim 1 recites that the one or more models can be updated based on real- time data received from the mobile devices, such as data indicating an action that a specific worker performed relative to a specific order, a set of features that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand as improving the claimed models”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the ability to update models does not ensure improvement in model performance. While paragraph [00133] recites that the use of training data improves the model, the paragraph merely goes on to state, “By updating the order-worker selection model by using additional training data, one or more parameters of the order-worker selection model may be altered.” The alteration of parameters within a model does not result in improvement to the execution of a model. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Citing Examples 39 and 48 of the USPTO Guidance, Applicant argues these examples in support of their updated model argument. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the above examples are analogous to the amended claims. Beginning with Example 39, Applicant cites that the example, “includes a training limitation, limitations for generating new training instances, including details associated therewith, and a limitation for retraining the one or more models.” However, the argued example solely includes the following as a way to training a neural network for facial detection. In the provided USPTO analysis, under Prong 1, the claim was found to recite none of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The present claim, as noted above recites both Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Process. Therefore, Example 39 analysis is not applicable to the present claims. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Example 48 of the USPTO Guidance, Applicant cites claim 3, “ordered combination of steps" of claim 1 that relate to training and retraining the one or more models, and using them in a networked system to reduce network traffic and improve the utilization of computer resources” as reasoning for why the claim was found to be patent eligible. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the argued “ordered combination of steps” is not analogous to claim 3 of Example 48. The claim in question includes steps (b), (c), and (d) which recite the following: using the DNN to convert a time-frequency representation of the mixed speech signal x into embeddings in a feature space as a function of the mixed speech signal x; clustering the embeddings using a k-means clustering algorithm; and applying binary masks to the clusters to obtain masked clusters. This combination provided a specific technical improvement over the previous systems by reciting details of how the DNN trained on source separation aids in the clustering assignment to correspond to the sources identified in the mixed speech signal. This is not analogous to the updating of the machine learning model based on worker completion of the assignment. Therefore, Example 48 analysis is not applicable to the present claims. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2B analysis, Applicant argues on page 17 of the provided remarks, “Claim 1 recites unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application”. Citing the pushing a notification to only a matched worker and then expanding the number of push notifications that are sent if an order is distressed as the unconventional steps, Applicant argues, “thereby increasing, in certain instances, a load on the network”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and begins by asserting that the ability of the system to sending push notifications, steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Finally, Applicant argues on page 17, “these limitations, particularly when viewed in combination with the real-time training data generation and model training set forth in claim 1, demonstrate that claim 1 includes steps that confine it to “a particular useful application.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that when the “training of one or more models”, “training instances”, is evaluated as an additional element, this feature is recited at a high level of generality and encompasses well-understood, routine, and conventional prior art activity. See, e.g., Djordjevic et al. US 2017/0262770, noting in paragraph [0008] that “conventional gradient boosting methods, in which all of the models are trained on the same set of features (even accounting for random feature selection in random forest methods), in the present system, each model is trained on different category of features that are distinct from the specific features used in the other models, and thus the models selectively predict the distinctive contribution each category of features contributes to the performance rating, providing improved feature and model decorrelation with respect to conventional gradient boosted approaches”. Accordingly, the use of machine learning to generate a learning model does not add significantly more to the claim. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 filed 5/28/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 18-20 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose the amended claim limitations. Applicant begins on pages 18-19 of the provided remarks to argue that the cited prior art, particularly Perry, “fails to disclose offering a task to multiple workers, much less the claimed technology for determining, based on a current time being near a completion time for the first order and based on the first order not being assigned, that the first order is distressed and the in response to determining that the order is distressed .. offering the first order to the additional workers.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and argues, as cited below that Perry discloses in cited paragraphs [0083] the determination by the server that the task has not been assigned and paragraphs [0088-89] the duration of the task and the completion time of the task. In response to said feedback on the task, Perry determines per cited [0083] “attempt to assign the task to that employee and if the employee becomes unavailable or refuses to accept the task, then network server may assign the task to the next-highest ranked/scored employee, until the task is accepted and started”. Therefore, Examiner asserts that cited prior art discloses at least the argued limitation. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on pages 19-20 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose the entirety of the amended claim limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the cited prior art in combination with newly cited Ayat (U.S 2023/0316172 A1) to disclose the amended claim limitations.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation beginning “at a first time” recites “the first order” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “a first order”;
The limitation beginning “at a first time” recites “a matched worker” which is a typographical error and should recite “the respective matched worker”;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation beginning "wherein the destination location" recites "one or more residences" which is a typographical error that should recite "includes one or more residences". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 requires that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention.” This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing history and purpose of the written description requirement).
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Claims 1, 16, and 20 each recite the phrase “…automatically update the training data to include a first training instance comprising (i) the matched worker, (ii) the first order, and (iii) a negative label indicating that the matched worker did not select the first order;” and “automatically update the training data to include a second training instance comprising (i) the second worker, (ii) the first order, and (iii) a positive label indicating that the second worker completed the first order.” Applicant’s specification discloses “….the work management platform 202 can, both when the offer is selected and not selected, update one or more of the order-worker selection model or order-worker data (step 906). For example, the work management platform 202 may use the following as an instance of training data to improve the order-worker selection model: (i) data related to the worker who sent the communication, (ii) data related to the order of the offer, and (iii) whether the order was selected or not selected.” (See Applicant’s Specification para. 0133). However, the Examiner is unable to find any generic or specific description, algorithm, or steps in the instant specification that show that Applicant was in possession of a technique that shows the positive and negative labeling indicating worker completion used as training data for the model.
The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Thus, there is no evidence of a complete specific application or embodiment to satisfy the requirement that the description is set forth “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to show possession of the claimed invention. Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1392, 170 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1971).
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 1-4, 6-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13, 15, and 21
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (system), and dependent claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-13, 15, and 21 respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e. machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite using training data comprising historical order data and worker data, train one or more models to generate order-worker scores using a plurality of model features, wherein the plurality of model features comprise order characteristics, worker characteristics, and a time feature; determine a plurality of order-worker scores for a plurality of orders and a plurality of workers available to perform the plurality of orders, wherein determining the plurality of order-worker scores comprises, for each of the plurality of orders, determining, for each of the plurality of workers, a score using the one or more models, wherein each order of the plurality of orders comprises an origin location, a destination location, and a completion time; based at least in part on the plurality of order-worker scores and an optimization process applied across the plurality of order-worker scores, match each order of the plurality of orders to a respective matched worker of the plurality of workers; at a first time, for the first order, offer the first order to only a matched worker matched with the first order by transmitting a push notification to only a mobile device of the matched worker to reduce, during the first time, a number of push notifications transmitted by the platform across a network to a plurality of mobile devices; in real-time, at a second time later than the first time: for the first order of the plurality of orders, determine, based on a current time being near a completion time for the first order and based on the first order not being assigned, that the first order is distressed; re-execute the one or more models using an updated value for the time feature based on the second time to generate a second plurality of order-worker scores; automatically update the training data to include a first training instance comprising (i) the matched worker, (ii) the first order, and (iii) a negative label indicating that the matched worker did not select the first order; and in response to determining that the first order is distressed, automatically transmit additional push notifications to mobile devices of additional workers to offer the first order to the additional workers, thereby increasing a load on the network during the second time, wherein the additional workers are selected from the plurality of available workers based on the second plurality of order-worker scores; receive, from a mobile device of the mobile devices of the additional workers, a notification that the first order is completed, wherein the mobile device is associated with a second worker of the plurality of workers; automatically update the training data to include a second training instance comprising (i) the second worker, (ii) the first order, and (iii) a positive label indicating that the second worker completed the first order; and re-train the one or more models using the updated training data comprising the first training instance and the second training instance (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above reciting the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are performing work management by matching each order of the plurality of orders to a matched worker of the plurality of workers, which is commercial interactions in the form of sales activity. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are performing work management by matching orders to workers, which recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are managing work by determining a plurality of order-worker scores for a plurality of orders and a plurality of workers available to perform the plurality of orders; based on the order-worker scores and an optimization process, matching each order of the plurality of orders to a matched worker of the plurality of workers; for a first order of the plurality of orders, determine, based on a current time being near, a completion time for the first order, and based on the first order not being assigned, that the first order is distressed; re-executing the model using an updated value for the timing feature; selecting additional workers based on the second plurality of order-worker scores, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgement, and evaluation. Additionally, the determine of order-worker scores and a score using one or more models could be done using pen and paper. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are performing work management by determining order-worker scores, matching orders to one or more workers, determining an order is in distress; and determining a score using one or more models, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-13, 15, and 21 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the plurality of workers; the plurality of orders; the one or more models; determining the score using the one or more models; updating one or more models; the past behavior of the worker; the order characteristics; and determining the availability of workers. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include commercial interactions such as sales activities and mental process. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they are directed to abstract ideas. Dependent claims 6 and 9 will be further discussed in Prong 2 analysis below.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the above “transmitting a push notification to only a mobile device of the matched worker to reduce, during the first time, a number of push notifications transmitted by the platform across a network to a plurality of mobile devices; automatically transmit additional push notifications to mobile devices of additional workers to offer the first order to the additional workers; receive, from a mobile device of the mobile devices of the additional workers, a notification that the first order is completed, wherein the mobile device is associated with a second worker of the plurality of workers” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “A work management platform comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor; a mobile device of the matched worker; mobile devices of the additional workers; global position system (GPS) devices in mobile devices” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 2-4, 7-10, 12-13, 15, and 21 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 9, 12, 13, and 21 additionally recite “receiving one or more communications from one or more of the plurality of workers”; “receive a communication from a communicating worker of the plurality of workers”; “in response to receiving a notification”; and “wherein the geolocations of the plurality of workers are determined using data generated” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “processor”, “a mobile application installed on a mobile device”, and “global position system (GPS) devices in mobile devices of the plurality of workers” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
Independent claim 1 as well as dependent claims 5-6 and 9 recite the following limitations, “using training data comprising historical order data and worker data, train one or more models”, “automatically update the training data to include a first training instance comprising (i) the matched worker, (ii) the first order, and (iii) a negative label indicating that the matched worker did not select the first order”; “automatically update the training data to include a second training instance comprising (i) the second worker, (ii) the first order, and (iii) a positive label indicating that the second worker completed the first order”; “re-train the one or more models using the updated training data comprising the first training instance and the second training instance”; “wherein one or more of the one or more models uses gradient boosting”; “generating, based on the one or more communications from the one or more workers, one or more training instances” and “altering, based on the one or more training instances, one or more parameters of the one or more of the one or more models”. The “using training data comprising historical order data and worker data, train one or more models”, “update the training data”, “re-train the one or more models”, “wherein one or more of the one or more models uses gradient boosting”, and “training instances” are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. These limitations would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “A work management platform comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor; a mobile device of the matched worker; mobile devices of the additional workers; global position system (GPS) devices in mobile devices” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further system claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13, 15, and 21 recite “A work management platform comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor; a mobile device of the matched worker; mobile devices of the additional workers; global position system (GPS) devices in mobile devices”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0198 and 0200 and Figures 1-3. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “transmitting a push notification to only a mobile device of the matched worker to reduce, during the first time, a number of push notifications transmitted by the platform across a network to a plurality of mobile devices; automatically transmit additional push notifications to mobile devices of additional workers to offer the first order to the additional workers, thereby increasing a load on the network during the second time; receive, from a mobile device of the mobile devices of the additional workers, a notification that the first order is completed, wherein the mobile device is associated with a second worker of the plurality of workers” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-4, 7-10, 12-13, 15, and 21 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 9, 12, 13, and 21 additionally recite “receiving one or more communications from one or more of the plurality of workers”; “receive a communication from a communicating worker of the plurality of workers”; “in response to receiving a notification”; “wherein the geolocations of the plurality of workers are determined using data generated by” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “processor”, “a mobile application installed on a mobile device”, and “global position system (GPS) devices in mobile devices of the plurality of workers” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05).
Next, when the “train of one or more models”, “update training data”, “re-train the one or more models”, and “gradient boost” is evaluated as an additional element, this feature is recited at a high level of generality and encompasses well-understood, routine, and conventional prior art activity. See, e.g., Liu et al., US 2011/0264609, noting in paragraph [0047] that “conventional gradient boosted machines are configured to learn functions that assign a single predicted value for a target attribute.” See also, Djordjevic et al. US 2017/0262770, noting in paragraph [0008] that “conventional gradient boosting methods, in which all of the models are trained on the same set of features (even accounting for random feature selection in random forest methods), in the present system, each model is trained on different category of features that are distinct from the specific features used in the other models, and thus the models selectively predict the distinctive contribution each category of features contributes to the performance rating, providing improved feature and model decorrelation with respect to conventional gradient boosted approaches”. Accordingly, the use of machine learning to generate a learning model does not add significantly more to the claim.
The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 16-17 and 19
Step 1: Independent claim 16 (method), and dependent claims 17 and 19 respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 16 is directed to a method (i.e. process).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite using training data comprising historical order data and worker data, train one or more models to generate order-worker scores using a plurality of model features, wherein the plurality of model features comprise order characteristics and worker characteristics; determining a plurality of order-worker scores for a plurality of orders and a plurality of workers available to perform the plurality of orders, wherein determining the plurality of order-worker scores comprises, for each of the plurality of orders, determining, for each of the plurality of workers, a score using the one or more models, wherein each order of the plurality of orders comprises an origin location, a destination location, and a completion time; based at least in part on the plurality of order-worker scores and an optimization process applied across the plurality of order-worker scores, match each order of the plurality of orders to a respective matched worker of the plurality of workers; at a first time, for the first order, offering the first order to a matched worker matched with the first order by transmitting a push notification to only a mobile device of the matched worker; in real-time, at a second time later than the first time: for the first order of the plurality of orders, determine, based on a current time and a completion time for the first order and based on the first order not being assigned, that the first order is distressed; re-executing the one or more models to generate a second plurality of order-worker scores; automatically updating the training data to include a first training instance comprising (i) the matched worker, (ii) the first order, and (iii) a negative label indicating that the matched worker did not select the first order; and in response to determining that the first order is distressed, automatically transmitting additional push notifications to mobile devices of additional workers to offer the first order to the additional workers, wherein the additional workers are selected from the plurality of available workers based on the second plurality of order-worker scores; receiving, from a mobile device of the mobile devices of the additional workers, a notification that the first order is completed, wherein the mobile device is associated with a second worker of the plurality of workers; automatically updating the training data to include a second training instance comprising (i) the second worker, (ii) the first order, and (iii) a positive label indicating that the second worker completed the first order; and re-training the one or more models using the updated training data comprising the first training instance and the second training instance (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above reciting the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are performing work management by matching each order of the plurality of orders to a matched worker of the plurality of workers, which is commercial interactions in the form of sales activity. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are performing work management by matching orders to workers, which recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are managing work by determining a plurality of order-worker scores for a plurality of orders and a plurality of workers available to perform the plurality of orders; based on the order-worker scores and an optimization process, matching each order of the plurality of orders to a matched worker of the plurality of workers; for a first order of the plurality of orders, determine, based on a current time and a completion time for the first order, and based on the first order not being assigned, that the first order is distressed; re-executing the model; selecting additional workers based on the second plurality of order-worker scores, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgement, and evaluation. Additionally, the determine of order-worker scores and a score using one or more models could be done using pen and paper. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are performing work management by determining order-worker scores, matching orders to one or more workers, determining an order is in distress; and determining a score using one or more models, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 17 and 19 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the plurality of orders; updating one or more models based on a communication from workers. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include commercial interactions such as sales activities and mental process. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the above “transmitting a push notification to a mobile device of the matched worker; automatically transmitting additional push notifications to mobile devices of additional workers to offer the first order to the additional workers; receiving, from a mobile device of the mobile devices of the additional workers, a notification that the first order is completed, wherein the mobile device is associated with a second worker of the plurality of workers” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “a mobile application installed on a mobile device; a mobile device of the matched worker; mobile devices of the additional workers” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 17 and 19 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claim 19 additionally recite “receiving a communication from a communicating worker of the plurality of workers” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “a mobile application installed on a mobile device” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
Independent claim 16 recites the following limitations, “using training data comprising historical order data and worker data, train one or more models”, “automatically updating the training data to include a first training instance comprising (i) the matched worker, (ii) the first order, and (iii) a negative label indicating that the matched worker did not select the first order”; “automatically updating the training data to include a second training instance comprising (i) the second worker, (ii) the first order, and (iii) a positive label indicating that the second worker completed the first order”; and “re-training the one or more models using the updated training data comprising the first training instance and the second training instance”. The “using training data comprising historical order data and worker data, train one or more models”, “update the training data”, and “re-train the one or more models” are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. These limitations would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “a mobile application installed on a mobile device; a mobile device of the matched worker; mobile devices of the additional workers” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 16-17 & 19 recite “a mobile application installed on a mobile device; a mobile device of the matched worker; mobile devices of the additional workers”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0198 and 0200