DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 10, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending, claims 9-10 and 14-20 were withdrawn, and claims 1-8 and 11-13 were rejected in a final rejection dated September 19, 2025. In the RCE, submitted on December 10, 2025, claim 1 was amended and claim 12 was cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-11 and 12-20 are currently pending, claims 9-10 and 14-20 withdrawn, and claims 1-8, 11, and 13 are subject to the following non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on Page 7 of the RCE, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s Remarks on Pages 8-12 of the RCE, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Examiner notes, as discussed below in the claim interpretation section, that under broadest reasonable interpretation the “initiating a HOTO time to track the time consumed in performing the HOTO activity” step does not need to be performed if the condition “when the second user is determined to be different from the first user” is not met. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments, referencing the initiating a HOTO timer are moot.
On page 9 of the RCE, Applicant argues “that one or more features of amended independent claim 1 cannot be a certain method of organizing human activity. These steps are inextricably tied to a computing system and cannot be performed solely by human cognition. Specifically, the method is not directed to a mental act because each step is expressly implemented by one or more processors of a client device coupled to a server…The operations receiving initiation requests containing user credentials, automatically comparing the credentials of the first and second users stored in memory, initiating a HOTO timer, generating HOTO summaries with operational parameters, analyzing those summaries to generate a training dataset, and training a machine learning model are all computer- executed functions that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. The credential comparison requires accessing and matching digital authentication parameters or tokens stored in electronic memory, the timer operation involves processor-controlled tracking and synchronization, and the machine learning model training requires processing large datasets to classify future HOTO or self-takeover activities. These steps depend on the use of computing resources and data processing capabilities of the client server system, producing technical effects such as automated authentication, precise timing, and data-driven optimization of future shift operations. Accordingly, the claim is directed to a computer-implemented technological process, not to an abstract mental act or human judgment.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and initially notes that the claims were and are rejected (as discussed below) as reciting a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people; and commercial interactions), and not a “human cognition”, “a mental act”, “performed in the human mind” or “an abstract mental act or human judgment” as Applicant alleges. Furthermore, simply “expressly implement[ing] by one or more processors of a client device coupled to a server” is not the test for subject matter eligibility, specifically Step 2A, Prong 1. That is merely, “[a]dding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f))” does not take the claims out of the grouping of an abstract idea.
Examiner notes “receiving initiation requests containing user credentials, …comparing the [stored] credentials of the first and second user…, initiating a HOTO timer, generating HOTO summaries with operational parameters, analyzing those summaries to generate a training dataset” are limitations that recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people; and commercial interactions); and “automatically” performing actions, storing data in “memory”, and “training a machine learning model” are recited at a high-level of generality such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Lastly, Examiner notes that “credential comparison requires accessing and matching digital authentication parameters or tokens”, “the timer operation involves processor-controlled tracking and synchronization, and the machine learning model training requires processing large datasets to classify future HOTO or self-takeover activities” are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Pages 9-10 of the RCE, Applicant further argues “that the subject matter of amended independent claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea but is integrated into a practical application because it is implemented within a specific client-server computing environment that manages real-time Handover-Takeover (HOTO) operations in an enterprise system…Each claimed step contributes to a concrete technological process. The client device receives and verifies user credentials using stored authentication parameters, initiates a processor-controlled HOTO timer to track the duration of the shift handover, generates HOTO summaries containing operational data, and transmits that data to the server for analysis and machine-learning-based optimization of future HOTO activities. The trained model's output is then used to improve subsequent system operations by identifying efficient or inefficient handovers. These operations transform input user credentials and shift data into actionable system configurations that enhance authentication accuracy, timing precision, and process efficiency. The method thus provides a specific improvement in how the computing system performs authenticated shift transitions and data-driven process optimization, not merely a generic application of an abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that “managing real-time…HOTO operations in an enterprise system”, “receives and verifies user credentials using stored authentication parameters”, “initiates a… HOTO timer to track the duration of the shift handover, generates HOTO summaries containing operational data, and transmits that data …for analysis and….optimization of future HOTO activities”, “to improve subsequent system operations by identifying efficient or inefficient handovers”, “These operations transform input user credentials and shift data into actionable system configurations that enhance authentication accuracy, timing precision, and process efficiency”, and “performs authenticated shift transitions and data-driven process optimization” are all recitations of an abstract idea (i.e., a certain method of organizing human activity, such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people; and commercial interactions).
Furthermore, “a specific client-server computing environment that manages real-time…operations”, “processor-controlled”, “server”, “client device” are additional elements that amount to “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). A “machine-learning-based” function does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Lastly, it is unclear what “specific improvement in how the computing system performs” is recited in the claims or abstract idea. Examiner notes that an examiner should not determine the claim improves technology, if a bare assertion of an improvement is made without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Here, it appears Applicant is arguing a business process improvement (“improve subsequent system operations by identifying efficient or inefficient handovers”, and “enhance authentication accuracy, timing precision, and process efficiency”) rather than a “specific improvement in how the computing system performs” as alleged. See Trading Technologies v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), where the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 10 of the RCE, Applicant further argues “The subject matter of amended independent claim 1 can be practically realized in domain of say, industrial operations such as, for example, manufacturing plants, oil refineries, power generation facilities, and hospitals, where continuous operation is critical and shift transitions must be handled with precision and accountability. In practice, a client device, such as a workstation, handheld terminal, or control console used by a shift operator, is coupled to a central server over a communication network. When a shift is about to end, the client device of the first user receives an initiation request containing that user's credentials. The same client device then receives credentials from a second user who will take over the operation. The one or more processors of the client device automatically compare authentication parameters or identifiers of both users stored in device memory or a connected credential database to determine whether to perform a handover (HOTO) or a self-takeover operation. Once the appropriate operation is identified, the system initiates a HOTO timer to electronically record the duration of the shift handover. The client and server then cooperate to generate and store HOTO summaries comprising operational parameters and time data, which are analyzed by the server to form a training dataset. A machine learning model is trained using that dataset to classify subsequent handovers or self-takeovers as efficient or inefficient according to organizational policies. The trained model's output can be used by the system to automatically refine future HOTO activities, such as optimizing timer thresholds or workflow settings. These operations are realized entirely through computing devices communicating over a network and manipulating stored electronic data producing tangible improvements in shift authentication accuracy, timing precision, and process efficiency. Accordingly, the claimed method is implemented as a practical, real-world computing solution and not as a mere abstract or conceptual idea.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that “operations are realized entirely through computing devices communicating over a network and manipulating stored electronic data producing tangible improvements” and “practical, real world…solution” is not the test for subject matter eligibility, and instead the Alice/Mayo test/guidelines for eligibility should be followed. See MPEP 2106.1, discussing that “eligibility should not be evaluated based on whether the claim recites a ‘useful, concrete, and tangible result,’ State Street Bank, 149 F.3d 1368, 1374, 47 USPQ2d 1596, 1602 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1544, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1994)), as this test has been superseded). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept).Lastly, as discussed above, “shift authentication accuracy, timing precision, and process efficiency” are arguments for an improved business process and not an improvement in the underlying technology. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 11 of the RCE, Applicant argues “elements of amended independent claim 1 provide an inventive concept and amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. The Applicant asserts that traditional approaches end up in unreliable and inefficient execution of shift transitions in operational environments, which can compromise safety, accountability, and continuity of operations. Specifically, manual or checklist-based handovers are prone to human error, lack real-time validation, and often fail to capture critical operational context, leading to miscommunication and operational delays. These issues are particularly problematic in high-stakes environments such as industrial plants, refineries, and hospitals, where even minor lapses in shift transitions can result in safety incidents, equipment damage, or service disruptions. Traditional systems also lack mechanisms to verify whether a shift is being handed over to a different user or continued by the same user, making it difficult to enforce compliance and traceability…In view of the above challenges, the subject matter of amended independent claim 1 provides a method executed within a client-server architecture. In the claimed method, a client device such as a terminal or console operated by a user is communicatively coupled to a server over a network. When an operation shift is about to end, the client device of the first user receives an initiation request to begin a HOTO activity, and this request contains the digital credentials of that first user. The same client device then receives credentials from a second user who intends to take over the shift. The one or more processors of the client device automatically compare the two sets of credentials by matching authentication parameters or identifiers stored in electronic memory or an associated credential database to determine whether the two users are different. Based on this automated comparison, the system performs either a HOTO activity or a self- takeover activity, without any manual verification step. Once a HOTO activity is initiated, the processors automatically start a HOTO timer to track the precise duration of the shift transfer and record it in synchronized data storage. After completion of the activity, the system generates HOTO summaries that include the recorded time and other operational parameters of the shift.”
While Applicant has summarized aspects of the invention (though including aspects not explicitly recited in the claims), Examiner notes that mere automation of manual processes does not provide an inventive concept. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). As discussed above, the recitation of a “client-server architecture” amount to “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, Applicant’s discussion/arguments are not found persuasive.
On Pages 11-12 of the RCE, Applicant further argues “the HOTO summaries generated are analyzed by the server to form a training dataset, in which HOTO activities are classified into clusters according to operational characteristics such as time, type of operation, or user behavior. Using this dataset, the system trains a machine-learning model that classifies subsequent HOTO and self-takeover activities as efficient or inefficient based on organizational policies. This architecture provides several technical advantages. That is, it ensures secure authentication by automatically verifying credential data through processor-executed comparison, eliminating human error or manipulation. Further, the processor-controlled HOTO timer and digital summaries enable accurate and tamper-proof timing records to be synchronized across devices. Also, by storing and analyzing these summaries, the system produces structured operational data that can be reused to train the machine-learning model, introducing self-learning and adaptive capabilities into the HOTO management system. As a result, the computing system itself becomes more efficient over time, achieving reduced latency, improved resource scheduling, and enhanced reliability in shift transitions.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and initially notes that several aspects of the invention discussed above are not claimed (i.e., “tamper-proof timing records to be synchronized across devices”, “introducing self-learning and adaptive capabilities into the HOTO management system”). Examiner further notes that “authentication by automatically verifying credential data through processor-executed comparison, eliminating human error or manipulation”, “enable accurate and tamper-proof timing records to be synchronized across devices”, “storing and analyzing these summaries” are not an improvement to the claimed computer “architecture” itself. As discussed above, mere automation of manual processes does not provide an inventive concept. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services.
In regard to the argument that “the computing system itself becomes more efficient over time, achieving reduced latency”, as discussed above, an examiner should not determine the claim improves technology, if a bare assertion of an improvement is made without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Here, nothing in the claims or specification discloses an improvement in the computer itself such that computer becomes more efficient. It appears Applicant is arguing a business process improvement (“improved resource scheduling, and enhanced reliability in shift transitions”) rather than an improvement to the comptuer’s efficiently itself, as alleged. See Trading Technologies v. IBG. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s Remarks on Pages 12-14 of the RCE regarding the previous rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims. However, Examiner notes that the independent claim recites new matter, as rejected below.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes method claim 1 recites “initiating, by the one or more processors, a HOTO timer to track the time consumed in performing the HOTO activity when the second user is determined to be different from the first user” (emphasis added). Examiner notes that under broadest reasonable interpretation of the above bolded conditional limitation, the “initiating a HOTO time to track the time consumed in performing the HOTO activity” step does not need to be performed if the condition “when the second user is determined to be different from the first user” is not met. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses a method where only the steps of “receiving… an initiation request…”, “receiving…credentials…”, “automatically comparing”, “performing one of the HOTO activity and a self-takeover activity”, “generating…HOTO summaries”, “analyzing…HOTO summaries”, and “training…a machine learning model” are performed. See Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016).
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 1-8, 11 and 13 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “analyzing…HOTO summaries for generating a training dataset, wherein the analyzing comprises classifying HOTO activities corresponding to the HOTO summaries into clusters based on operational characteristics of the client device.” The above bolded language is new matter.
Examiner initially notes that while there is no haec verba requirement, newly added claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicitly, or inherent disclosure (MPEP 2183). Further, when an explicit limitation in a claim "is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skilled would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires the limitation," Hyatt V. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348,1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998), MPEP 2163.
Here, Paragraph [0075] of Applicant’s specification discloses “to generate the training dataset, the decision engine 206 may first analyse the HOTO summaries and the takeover summaries based on an unsupervised machine learning model to form various data clusters… The data clusters may then be analysed and classified to mark the HOTO activities and the self-takeover activities corresponding to the HOTO summaries and the takeover summaries as efficient or inefficient. In an example, the data clusters may be analysed and classified to mark the HOTO activity or the self-takeover activity as efficient or inefficient based on the policies prescribed by the organisation where the HOTO activity or self- takeover activity is being performed.” However, the specification is silent on classifying HOTO activities corresponding to the HOTO summaries into clusters based on operational characteristics of the client device. Claims 2-8, 11, and 13 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “classify HOTO activities or self-takeover activity as efficient or inefficient based on organizational policies to optimize future operational shifts", (emphasis added) wherein efficient or inefficient are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term "efficient" and "inefficient" are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. (See Para. 20 of the PG Publication disclosing examples of "activity may not be performed efficiently" but fails to disclose how to ascertain what is efficient or inefficient when classifying HOTO activities or self-takeover activity). For examination purposes, claim 1 will be interpreted as reciting "…classify HOTO activities or self-takeover activity as correct or incorrect…”. Claims 2-8, 11 and 13 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 13 recites “The method as claimed in claim 12”. However, claim 12 was cancelled. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear. For examination purposes, claim 13 will be interpreted as depending from claim 1, “The method as claimed in claim 1”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 recites “The method as claimed in claim 12”. However, claim 12 was cancelled. Therefore, claim 12 is in improper dependent form for failing to reference a claim previously set forth. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. For examination purposes, claim 13 will be interpreted as depending from claim 1, “The method as claimed in claim 1”.
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, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-8, 11 and 13 recite a method (i.e., process), and therefore the claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites a series of steps of: receiving an initiation request to initiate a Handover-Takeover (HOTO) activity corresponding to an operation shift, the initiation request being received from a first user initiating handover of the operation shift, and the initiation request comprising credentials of the first user; receiving credentials of a second user taking over the operation shift from the first user; comparing the credentials of the second user with the credentials of the first user; performing one of the HOTO activity and a self-takeover activity based on the comparison of the credentials of the second user with the credentials of the first user, wherein the HOTO activity is for the handover of the operation shift from the first user to the second user; generating HOTO summaries corresponding to the operation shift, wherein the HOTO summaries comprise one or more operational parameters and the time consumed in performing the HOTO activity; analyzing HOTO summaries for generating a training dataset, wherein the analyzing comprises classifying HOTO activities corresponding to the HOTO summaries into clusters based on operational characteristics of a user; and training based on the training dataset to classify HOTO activities or self-takeover activity as efficient or inefficient based on organizational policies to optimize future operational shifts.
The claim as a whole recites a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations recited above, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, e.g., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and commercial interactions. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it” or (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning).
The additional elements include: (i) a client device (coupled to a server); (ii) a server; (iii) one or more processors (automatically performing functions); and (iv) training a machine learning model.
The additional elements (i) –(iii) are recited at a high-level of generality, such that when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element (iv) is recited at a high-level of generality, such that when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, it does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the additional elements (i)-(iv), when viewed as a whole/ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or "apply it" or (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning), and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or "apply it" (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning ) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (See Figs. 1 and 2), nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, 11 and 13 further recite details which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions of claim 1. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claim 1 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-4, 11 and 13 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 5 further narrows the abstract idea of claims 1 and 3, by reciting transmitting an operation shift report corresponding to the operation shift, wherein the operation shift report is prepared by the first user, and wherein the operation shift report is indicative of operation details associated with the operation shift.
Claim 6 further narrows the abstract idea of claims 1 and 3, by reciting transmitting the HOTO summary.
Claim 7 further narrows the abstract idea of claims 1 and 3, by reciting transmitting the HOTO summary along with an operation shift report corresponding to the operation shift to, wherein the operation shift report is prepared by the first user, and wherein the operation shift report is indicative of operation details associated with the operation shift.
Claim 8 further narrows the abstract idea of claims 1 and 3, by reciting determining the HOTO summary to be in a submitted state; and transmitting an indication for locking the HOTO summary for preventing editing of the handover report.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Claims 5-8 recite the additional element of an operations management server, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See Para. 28 of Applicant’s Publication disclosing the operations management server as either a standalone computer or a combination of multiple computing devices operating together in a distributed computing environment. Examples of the operations management server may include, but are not limited to, laptops, desktops, tower servers, rack servers, blade servers, and mainframes), such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (e.g., Figs. 1 and 2) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Allowable over the Prior Art
Claims 1-8, 11, and 13 are allowable over the prior art, but subject to the other rejections above.
The closest prior art for the claims include:
CN111176630A to Yongfeng et al. (hereinafter “Yongfeng”). Yongfeng discloses a method for changing the identity information of a duty officer by calling a camera to obtain the image of the on-duty personnel who are taking over the shift. The acquired image of the on-duty personnel taking over is used as an input parameter of the application programming interface of the face recognition service application, and the face recognition service application determines whether to change the identity information of the on-duty personnel in the management system.
U.S. Application Publication No. 2014/0172484 to Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu”). Liu discloses a first worker and a second worker are assigned to be responsible for a work detail. The work detail completed is transferred to the second worker from the first worker. The first worker uses the electronic device to complete transferred contents of the work detail before passing the electronic device to the second worker. Receiving module 100 receives information in relation to a first worker and a second worker that are assigned to be responsible for a work detail from the electronic devices. The detection module 101 accesses the cloud server 3 and detects whether the obtained information from the second worker accords with the working schedule. When the person who is using the electronic device is the second worker, the execution module 103 accesses the cloud server 3 and receives job contents selected by the first worker and the second worker.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0058589 to Qian et al. (hereinafter “Qian”). Qian discloses a work shift handover report includes (or summarizes) data that is relevant for operational continuity and which needs to be made available to a team of operators who will be operating the plant in the subsequent/incoming work shift. Generated work shift handover report(s) 308 may be generated based on selection of specific data records/data logs.
U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0066552 to Shami (hereinafter “Shami”). Shami discloses a system that may include an event type generator configured to cause the at least one processor to provide a training set for training a supervised machine learning algorithm to classify documents with respect to an event type. A set of documents from the corpus 122, and this set of documents may be used as a training set in training a supervised machine learning algorithm of the event classifier 114 to classify received documents with respect to the new, created event type. In this regard, it will be appreciated that the selected subset defined as the training dataset may be considered to have particular predictive value with respect to correctly classifying subsequently-received input. During the evaluation, it may occur that a false negative occurs in which a training document or training match that should be classified in a certain manner, is in fact failed to be classified as such a determination as to whether the evaluation is satisfactory (512) may generally depend on a number of situation-specific factors. If the evaluated training set is considered not to be satisfactory (512), then any of the previous operations 502-510 may be revisited and adjusted. For example, different features and corresponding values may be selected (e.g., different training documents may be selected), and a modified training set may be selected therefrom. Of course, in separate iterations, different algorithms may be selected. Further, in the evaluations thereof, various parameters (e.g., a tolerance for false positives and/or false negatives, as referenced above) may be specified.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0191568 to Kashyap et al. (hereinafter “Kashyap”). Kashyap discloses a server for automatically obtaining and storing information from a current work shift of the plant from the control system; and at least one client connected to the server and comprising a logbook application module for manipulating the obtained information. Preferably, the server is configured to automatically transmit manipulated information to identified users of a subsequent work shift.
However, Yongfen, Liu, Qian, Shami nor Kashyap teach the combination of the claim limitations of claim 1 in its entirety.
Prior Art
The following is prior art not cited but considered relevant:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0085603 to Qian et al. (hereinafter “Qian II”). Qian II discloses a shift handover system that includes a shift hand over report.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is (571)270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on (571) 272-5587. 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.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628