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 .
Response to Arguments
Argument:
PNG
media_image1.png
128
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
324
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), claims can recite a mental process if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.
The examiner does not see why analyzing “structured machine logs” would be any different than analyzing any other type of data.
Argument:
PNG
media_image3.png
260
678
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response:
These features were not added to claim 1.
Argument:
PNG
media_image4.png
294
662
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Claim 1 at minimum does not recite a machine learning model. Processing data to provide an improved dataset is an improvement to the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(a): 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. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
Argument:
PNG
media_image5.png
132
672
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Analyzing specific data by making specific calculations isn’t any less of an abstract idea than collecting/transmitting/labeling generic data.
Argument:
PNG
media_image6.png
130
678
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. 101 and 102/103 are different statutes. A novel abstract idea is not an inventive concept by being novel.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Exemplary claims 1-5, 16-17 recite:
1. (currently amended) A work management device, comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to perform: acquiring, after login to a system using a first terminal, (i) login information associated with a worker including a user ID, a terminal ID, and a login time, and (ii) an operation history of the first terminal in which each operation record includes an operation type and operation start and end times;storing the login information and the operation history in a storage unit; acquiring a setting of an inter-work interval reference time (T I)that is-indicates a minimum time interval between an end of work on one day and a start of work on a next day; specifying a non-operation period for the first terminal by (a) identifying, in the operation history, a gap between an end time of a first operation and a start time of a next operation, (b) treating, as no operation, an operation satisfying predetermined noise conditions including at least one of: a duration shorter than a first threshold (T1), an acquisition order condition, and surrounding non-operation periods longer than second and third thresholds (T2, T3), and (c) when an operation history from a second terminal is acquired within the gap, fixing anon-operation period for the first terminal from the end time to a start time at which the operation history of the second terminal is acquired; calculating working hours of the worker by including a non-operation period shorter than _ I and excluding anon-operation period equal to or longer than T I, and, when a prescription time obtained from the system is later than a last operation end time on the one day; replacing at least a portion of an excluded period with a period from the prescription time; and recording the calculated working hours in the storage unit.
2. The work management device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to specify a period in which the operation history of a terminal after login to the system is not obtained as the non-operation period of the terminal.
3. The work management device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to specify a period during which an operation satisfying a predetermined operation condition indicated by the operation history of a terminal is performed as the non- operation period of the terminal.
4. The work management device according to claim 1, wherein the system includes an electronic medical record system used by a medical worker.
5. The work management device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate the working hours by using an estimation model by machine learning, determine whether a difference between the working hours and scheduled working hours satisfies a warning standard, and output, when the difference satisfies the warning standard, a warning used for decision making regarding the working hours.
16. (new) The work management device according to claim 1, wherein each of the inter-work interval reference time (TI), the first threshold Ti, the second threshold T2 and the third threshold T3 is configurable and stored in the storage unit.
17. (new) The work management device according to claim 1, wherein the first terminal comprises a mouse and a keyboard, and wherein the predetermined noise conditions include operation of the mouse without operation of the keyboard.
All claims recite subject matter falling within one of the four categories of invention. But for the recitation of the underlined additional elements, claims 1-5, 16 and 17 recite a mental process. A person could mentally review operation history data and setting data, analyze information and then make a determination about how much time was worked and if that matches what has been scheduled.
Thus claims 1-5, 16 and 17 recite a mental process (step 2A_1).
The additional elements do not provide a practical application or significantly more for the following reasons:
1) The work management device represented by a processor, memory storing instructions and storage unit to store information are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea, which per MPEP 2106.05(f) means it does not provide a practical application or significantly more.
2) The acquiring steps in claim 1 amounts to necessary data gathering, which is extra-solution activity which per MPEP 2106.05(g) does not provide a practical application or significantly more. Additionally significantly more is not provided because receiving data is conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) citing Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
3) The output step in in claim 5 amounts to data output, which is extra-solution activity that per MPEP 2106.05(g) does not provide a practical application or significantly more. Additionally significantly more is not provided because outputting information is conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) citing OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
4) Regarding the electronic medical record system in claim 4, Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply storing medical record data therefore does not provide a practical application or significantly more.
5) Regarding the machine learning usage in claim 5, the machine learning model provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The claim only recites the idea of a solution without any particulars. Therefore, the machine learning usage does not provide a practical application or significantly more.
Evaluating the additional elements alone and in combination there is no practical application or significantly more for the reasons above (Step 2A_2 and Step 2B). Therefore claims 1-5, 16 and 17 are ineligible.
Claims 6-15 mirror claims 1-5 and are ineligible for substantially the same reasons.
Claim Status
Claims 1-18 distinguish over the cited art. Sutton (US 20240257063 A1) discloses computerized tracking of physician time. Peres (US 20220215347 A1) discloses computer-based analysis of employee activities. Ishiyama (US 20200357210 A1) discloses time tracking based on detecting entry and exits. Wang (US 20190057340) discloses time tracking of healthcare providers. Fairbanks (US 20150327011 A1) discloses employee time and proximity tracking. Porter (US 20150081487 A1) discloses a minimum time off between scheduled periods. Regarding claims 1-5, none of the cited art discloses or renders obvious a work management device, comprising:a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to perform:acquiring an operation history of a terminal after the terminal has logged in a system; acquiring a setting of an inter-work interval reference time that is a minimum time required to be spaced from an end of work on a certain day to a start of work on the next day;specifying a non-operation period of the terminal from a time when the terminal has logged in the system and the operational history of the terminal; and calculating working time of a worker by including non-operational time that is less than the inter-work interval reference time and without including the non-operational period that is more than the inter-work interval reference time. Claims 6-15 contain similar features.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN A MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/NATHAN A MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627