DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-14 are considered in this Office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Signals Per Se – Claims 1-14 are not in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claim 1 recites “a computer program comprising instructions” embodying various instructions. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program and medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of “a program”. There is no special definition, and as a result, Claim 1 encompasses within its scope signals per se and are thus not statutory. See In re. Nuijten, 500 F.3rd 1346, 1356-57. The dependent Claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent Claim they rely on and thus are similarly rejected.
Examiner suggests adding the term “non-transitory" to the Claim.
Alice – Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to the limitations for calculating, using the computer program, a baseline cost of lost productivity of a team (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Activity, i.e. managing teams; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity); providing a training program for the team having a leader to participate, comprising: a vital statistics report, using the computer program, the vital statistics report having a key indicator (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an evaluation and judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Activity, i.e. managing teams; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity); and a statement, using the vital statistics report, is displayed to the team, wherein the statement is associated with the key indicator, wherein the team responds with a response to the statement, the response forms a score (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an evaluation and judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Activity, i.e. managing teams; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity); computing the score, using machine learning, to calculate a measured cost of lost productivity of the team (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Activity, i.e. managing teams; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity); and comparing the baseline cost of the lost productivity of the team to the measured cost of the lost productivity of the team, using the computer program, to generate a team effectiveness score based on detected behavioral changes that determine effectiveness of the team (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an evaluation and judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Activity, i.e. managing teams; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of organizing and tracking information for managing teams, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Organizing and Tracking information for Managing Human Activity, i.e. managing teams. For example, calculating a baseline cost of lost productivity of a team encompasses a manager or supervisor using observed team aspects to determine how much time is lost due to productivity in the form of a score, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for organizing and tracking information for Managing Human Activity, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The computer program and computer are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the transmission steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[00339] In some embodiments the method or methods described above may be executed or carried out by a computing system including a tangible computer-readable storage medium, also described herein as a storage machine, that holds machine-readable instructions executable by a logic machine (i.e. a processor or programmable control device) to provide, implement, perform, and/or enact the above-described methods, processes and/or tasks. When such methods and processes are implemented, the state of the storage machine may be changed to hold different data. For example, the storage machine may include memory devices such as various hard disk drives, CD, or DVD devices. The logic machine may execute machine- readable instructions via one or more 52 physical information and/or logic processing devices. For example, the logic machine may be configured to execute instructions to perform tasks for a computer program. The logic machine may include one or more processors to execute the machine-readable instructions.”
Which states that any type of logic machine/computer can be used, such as any personal computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, etc., to perform the abstract limitations, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the computer, computer program, etc., nor the transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-14 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection and any other rejections.
The closest prior art of record are Stenning (U.S. Publication No. 2021/001,2266), Wong (U.S. Publication No. 2006/005,9032), and Trikannad (U.S. Publication No. 2022/040,5642). Stenning, an augmented management system and method, teaches providing a training program for the team having a leader to participate as in a training session and program for best practices to train leaders, a vital statistics report, using the computer program, the vital statistics report having a key indicator where reports are used to determine quantifiable behaviors/indicators, along with a leader report and production reports which allow for visualizing key performance indicators, a statement, using the vital statistics report, is displayed to the team, wherein the statement is associated with the key indicator, wherein the team responds with a response to the statement, the response forms a score, comparing behaviors and team effectiveness which are used to determine efficiency of a team and productivity scores, and calculating, using a computer program, a cost of lost productivity of a team as a known bottleneck of work, which reduces productivity, is calculated, but it does not explicitly state this is a baseline cost, nor does it teach using machine learning to calculate a cost of lost productivity. Wong, a system and method for enterprise modeling and temporal activity-based costing and utilization, teaches calculating rates with lost productivity, and creation of a baseline cost to model future costs and quantify training opportunities, but it does not teach comparing the baseline cost of the lost productivity of the team being used to generate an effectiveness score. Neither Wong nor Stenning teaches calculating a measure cost of lost productivity using machine learning. Trikannad, a system and method for contribution ratings, teaches key performance indicators being used to train new and impactful employees, and determining lost productivity, rating of a teams performance, systems to improve a team’s performance, improving sales team reach, and all of this being visually presented, but it does not teach comparing the baseline cost of the lost productivity of the team being used to generate an effectiveness score, nor does calculating a measure cost of lost productivity using machine learning. None of the above prior art explicitly teaches comparing the baseline cost of the lost productivity of the team being used to generate an effectiveness score, and calculating a measure cost of lost productivity using machine learning, along with the other limitations in combination, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1-14 are allowable over the prior art of record, and are objected to as provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220405692 A1
Trikannad; Deepak Premanand
Systems and Methods for Contribution Ratings
US 20210012266 A1
STENNING; Braden et al.
AUGMENTED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD
US 20060059032 A1
Wong; Kevin Nelson et al.
System, computer program product, and method for enterprise modeling, temporal activity-based costing and utilization
US 20240112122 A1
KHAN; Kalimulla et al.
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR IDLE WORKER IDENTIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT
US 20230419204 A1
Patil; Madhusmita et al.
IDENTIFYING SKILL GAPS IN PROJECT TEAMS AND MATCHING WITH AVAILABLE RESOURCES
US 20230376878 A1
Safrata; Renée et al.
METHOD OF MEASURING HOW EFFECTIVE A TEAM IS AS WELL AS HOW EFFECTIVE THE LEADER OF THAT TEAM IS
US 20230325755 A1
Gallo; Michael et al.
PREDICTING PERFORMANCE STATISTICS OF A PLAYER USING MACHINE-LEARNING TECHNIQUES
US 20220266152 A1
LI; Chun-Hsien et al.
TEAMMATE RECOMMENDATION METHOD FOR A MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAME
US 20220156697 A1
Masood; Rafeh et al.
LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
US 20170308837 A1
BALUGARI; Sunil et al.
PRODUCTIVITY MEASUREMENT, MODELING AND ILLUSTRATION SYSTEM
US 20160098653 A1
Hojby; Soren et al.
Risk Analysis to Improve Operational Workforce Planning
US 20240281074 A1
Jorasch; James et al.
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUS FOR ENHANCED PERIPHERALS
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, ERIC STAMBER can be reached on (571) 272-6724. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683 9/26/2024