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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 27, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 were previously pending, claims 9-10 and 14-20 withdrawn, and claims 1-8, 11, and 13 were subject to a final rejection dated April 27, 2026. In the RCE, submitted on July 27, 2026, claims 1, 3-4, and 7-8 were amended, claims 5-6 were cancelled, and claims 21-23 were added. Therefore, claims 1-4, 7-11, and 13-23 are currently pending, claims 9-10 and 14-20 are withdrawn, and claims 1-4, 7-8, 11, 13, and 21-23 are rejected in the non-final rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on Pages 7-9 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.
On Pages 7-8 of the RCE, in discussing Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant argues “this characterization oversimplifies the claims and fails to account for their specific technical requirements. By way of example, amended claim 1 recites, inter alia: ‘validating, by one or more processors, the credentials of the second user to ascertain authenticity of the second user for taking over the operation shift from the first user.’ Claim 1 further recites: ‘automatically comparing by the one or more processors, the credentials of the second user with the credentials of the first user’; ‘initiating by the one or more processors, a HOTO timer to track the time consumed in performing the HOTO activity’; ‘generating, by the one or more processors, HOTO summaries corresponding to the operation shift based on the HOTO information, wherein the HOTO summaries comprise one or more operational parameters and the time consumed in performing the HOTO activity’; ‘analyzing, by the one or more processors, the HOTO summaries for generating a training dataset, wherein the analyzing comprises classifying the HOTO activity corresponding to the HOTO summaries to form data clusters using a machine learning model based on the time consumed and the one or more operational parameters’; and ‘training, by the one or more processors, the machine learning model based on the training dataset to classify HOTO activities or self-takeover activity based on organizational policies to optimize future operational shifts.’ These are specific technical operations involving processor-executed authentication, automated credential comparison, electronic timing, structured data generation, and machine-learning-based data clustering and training-not activities that could practically be performed mentally or manually.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes “validating…the credentials of the second user to ascertain authenticity of the second user for taking over the operation shift from the first user”, “comparing…the credentials of the second user with the credentials of the first user", "initiating…a HOTO timer to track the time consumed in performing the HOTO activity", "generating…HOTO summaries corresponding to the operation shift based on the HOTO information, wherein the HOTO summaries comprise one or more operational parameters and the time consumed in performing the HOTO activity", "analyzing… the HOTO summaries for generating a training dataset, wherein the analyzing comprises classifying the HOTO activity corresponding to the HOTO summaries to form data clusters… based on the time consumed and the one or more operational parameters", and "… classify HOTO activities or self-takeover activity based on organizational policies to optimize future operational shifts”, are limitations that recite the abstract idea a of a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people), and a mental process (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment).)
That the claims involve “processor-executed” authentication, “automated” credential comparison, “electronic” timing, alleged “structured” data generation, and “machine-learning-based” data clustering and “training” does not take the claims out of the grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity, or a mental process. In regard to the subgrouping of a mental process, Examiner notes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)((C) A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process explains “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer… examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.” Here, as will be discussed further in detail, using a machine learning model and the one or more processors (performing automatic functions, and training the ML model) use a generic computer and use a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 8 of the RCE, in discussing Step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant further argues “the claims…integrate any such idea into a practical application” and cites to Paragraph [0020] of the Specification to identify technical problems with HOTO activities.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes Paragraph [0020] describes problems with HOTO activity inefficiency due to an operator, not a technical problem as alleged. “…the HOTO information may not be recorded effectively due to less or no overlap time between arrival of the incoming operator and departure of the outgoing operator. Further, there may be a situation when an operator may try resubmitting the HOTO information or the operation shift report after the HOTO activity has been performed. In such a situation, it may become difficult to ascertain the credibility of the HOTO activity, thereby reducing the efficiency associated with the HOTO activity. Moreover, there may be instances when the HOTO activity may not be performed as the outgoing operator may continue for another operation shift. In such a situation, the outgoing operator may still record the HOTO information and the operation shift report owing to workflow related constraints. Thus, the HOTO information and the operation shift report may be recorded even in situations where the HOTO activity is not performed.” (emphasis added).
Applicant further argues “[t]he specification further describes a technical solution: ‘the credentials of the second user may be validated to ascertain the authenticity of the second user for taking over the shift from the first user. The credentials of the second user may then be compared with the credentials of the first user.’…Additionally, ‘a HOTO timer may be initiated based on determining the second user to be different from the first user’ and ‘[a] HOTO summary corresponding to the operation shift may then be generated, where the HOTO summary is indicative of the HOTO information and time consumed in the performing of the HOTO activity.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees that any “technical solution” is being described in the above portions of the specification. As discussed above, Paragraph [0020] of the Specification, describes problems with HOTO activity inefficiency due to an operator. Therefore, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(1) “Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp… speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC…” is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Pages 8-9 of the RCE, Applicant states “[t]he claims provide a specific technical solution through an ordered combination” and cites to the independent claim limitations. Applicant further argues “Here, the claims reflect the specification's disclosed improvement to shift handover management technology. The specification explains that the machine learning model analyzes HOTO summaries ‘to form various data clusters’ and is trained ‘to classify subsequent HOTO activities and the self-takeover activities as efficient or inefficient.’”
Examiner disagrees that a “technical” solution is being claimed, for the reasons discussed above. It is unclear what “shift handover management technology” is, beyond the high-level recitation of the one or more processors performing automatic tasks and machine learning/training machine learning models. As will be discussed further below in the detailed rejection, the “analyzes HOTO summaries ‘to form various data clusters’…‘to classify subsequent HOTO activities and the self-takeover activities as efficient or inefficient’” reflect the abstract idea. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 9 of the RCE, Applicant further argues “[Examiner’s] comparison [to Trading Technologies] is inapt. Unlike Trading Technologies, which involved a user interface that allegedly provided a trader with more information, the claims here recite processor-executed credential validation, automated comparison, processor-controlled timing, structured data generation, and machine-learning-based clustering and training, all of which are technical operations that improve the functioning of computerized shift handover management systems.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as it is unclear what the “computerized shift hangover management system” technology is, beyond the high-level recitation of “processor-executed” credential validation, “automated” credential comparison, “processor-controlled” timing, alleged “structured” data generation, and “machine-learning-based” data clustering and “training” (emphasis added) – which merely adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or includes mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, similar to Trading Technologies, no improvement to the underlying technology is being claimed (e.g., the processors or machine learning/training of the machine learning model).
On Page 9 of the RCE, in discussing Step 2B, Applicant further argues “[t]he Examiner's Step 2B analysis is conclusory, stating the additional elements ‘amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.’ … The Office Action provides no evidence that this specific arrangement was well-understood, routine, or conventional, which is required to sustain a Step 2B rejection. In fact, no prior art was cited that allegedly anticipated or rendered the claims obvious. As such, it is not accurate that the specific arrangement was well-understood, routine, or conventional.”
Examiner disagrees and urges Applicant to review MPEP 2106.07(a)(III) EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS IN MAKING A § 101 REJECTION, which explains “At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B.” Examiner never asserted that any of the additional elements were well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, and therefore no evidence was required. Thus, Applicant’s understanding of the analysis at Step 2B and the evidentiary requirement is misguided.
Lastly, Examiner notes “…the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo…. … The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”)…Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements.” (emphasis added) See MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More (I). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, and 13 are objected to for reciting “the HOTO summary”, which lacks antecedent basis. Examiner notes independent claim 1 provides antecedent support for the plural, “HOTO summaries”, but not for a singular HOTO summary. For examination purposes, the claims will be interpreted as reciting “a HOTO summary” in the first instance (e.g., similar to claim 4). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 11, 13, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 11, 13, and 21-23 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; validating the credentials of the second user to ascertain authenticity of the second user for 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 performed when credentials of the second user are different from the credentials of the first user; initiating a HOTO timer to track the time consumed in performing the HOTO activity, wherein the HOTO activity is for the handover of the operation shift from the first user to the second user, receiving, from the first user, HOTO information corresponding to the operation shift from the first user; generating HOTO summaries corresponding to the operation shift based on the HOTO information, wherein the HOTO summaries comprise one or more operational parameters and the time consumed in performing the HOTO activity; transmitting an operation shift report corresponding to the HOTO summaries, 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; analyzing the HOTO summaries for generating a training dataset, wherein the analyzing comprises classifying the HOTO activity corresponding to the HOTO summaries to form data clusters based on the time consumed and the one or more operational parameters; and based on the training dataset, classifying HOTO activities or self-takeover activity 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 a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind -including an observation, evaluation, judgment). 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: 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”.
The additional elements include: (i) a client device (coupled to a server); (ii) a server, and an operations management server; (iii) one or more processors (automatically performing functions); and (iv) using a machine learning mode, and training the machine learning model.
The additional elements (i) –(iv) 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, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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: 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", 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)), 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, 7-8, 11, 13, and 21-22 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, 7-8, 11, 13, 21-22 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 23 recites initiation of the HOTO timer, and in response to detecting the initiation of the timer, prompting for receiving the HOTO information from the first user – which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 23 as a whole amounts to: 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”.
The additional elements include: (i) an interaction engine of the client device; and (ii) generating a prompt on the client device.
The additional elements (i) –(ii) 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, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements (i)-(ii), 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: mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract (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 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 Fig. 1) nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Allowable over the Prior Art
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 11, 13, and 21-23 are allowable over the prior art because none of the prior art references teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 in its entirety. However, the claims are subject to the rejection under 35 U.S.C.101.
The closest prior art for the claims includes:
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.
CN 10009260 to Wang (hereinafter “Wang”). Wang discloses monitoring shift changeover times.
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.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0237230 to Zovic et al. (hereinafter “Zovic”). Zovic discloses indexing reports, generating individual document summaries, training a machine learning model for report indexing and summarization, using the model to generate the report indexing and document summaries, and scoring report indexes and summaries.
However, Yongfen, Wang, Liu, Qian, Shami, Kashyap, and Zovic alone or combination, do not teach the combination of all 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
Prosecution Insights