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 .
Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 20-24 are pending and have been examined on the merits set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges the claims do not recite mental processes or certain method of organizing human activity because the claim recites collecting data from a plurality of data sources across respective subsystems of a platform, however, Examiner disagrees. The identifying action data; providing to a model; obtaining output from the model; providing a benefaction level to a normalization function and issuing a badge are all abstract ideas. They are mental processes wherein a human can practically perform in the mind or with pen and paper. This type of data analysis can be considered Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity as it relates to managing personal behavior of people and/or business relations. Using a platform amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Using a machine learning model amounts to implementing a mathematical algorithm on a computer and does not integrate any abstract idea into a practical application. There is no improvement to the computer or technology. The claim recites steps that someone could practically perform to generate a benefaction rating, and uses a computing platform with machine learning models to perform the computations. In response to issuing the badge, removing the data to free memory resources does not offer an improvement to any computer or technology. Simply deleting data from the sub-systems so they are not factored in to future calculations does not improve the memory or computer itself. Examiner upholds the assertion that the claim recite abstract ideas.
In response to arguments regarding Step 2A, Applicant argues the claims enable efficient tracking of worker benefaction, etc., and provides the tangible benefit of improved computational resource management and reduced storage overhead across distributed platform components while maintaining accurate records. This does not present any technological improvement to the computer system. A computer may run more efficiently while storing less data, but the benefits do not stem from any technological improvement.
Applicant compares the claims to Example 40. Example 40 included claims directed to improved network performance which is different in both subject matter and technical scope than the claims at issue. Limiting data transmission to avoid excess traffic volume is not analogous to removing data from a data source and the removal of data in the claimed invention does not offer a technological improvement as necessary in Step 2A. Similarly, Example 37 is different in both subject matter and technical scope. Example 37 was found eligible due to an improvement in how computers managed graphical elements. There is not an analogous improvement in the claimed invention.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims rejected under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-16, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-6, 8-16, and 20-24 is/are directed to a method, system, and computer program product. Thus, all the claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the Examiner notes that the claims recite mental processes. More specifically, the independent claims 1, 12 and 20 recite:
identifying,
providing,
obtaining,
providing,
obtaining,
responsive to determining that the benefaction rating for at least one respective worker of the plurality of workers satisfies one or more criteria associated with the goal of the organization, issuing,
responsive to issuing the
As indicated next to each limitation, the claim recites mental processes. Specifically, evaluations and observations that may be performed in the mind or with pen and paper are recited. In addition, the concept of determining a benefaction level for workers based on machine learning and normalization wherein the benefaction rating reflects the benefaction level of a worker relative to other workers and maintaining a database of such evaluations is Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity as it relates to managing personal behavior of people and/or business relations and the instructions one would follow to generate a benefaction rating and associated badge.
The nominal recitation of a platform and machine learning models in claim 1, a system comprising a memory and a processing device coupled to the memory in claim 12, and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that are executed by a processing device in claim 20, does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. A platform and machine learning models in claim 1, a system comprising a memory and a processing device coupled to the memory in claim 12, and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that are executed by a processing device in claim 20 amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Further, in each independent claim, removing data from each data source across respective sub-systems can be viewed as certain methods of organizing human activity wherein the user follows the instructions laid out in the claim. Using a computer to delete data from memory does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since there is no improvement to the computer or technology.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 2-4, 13-15 recite steps of updating a database of digital badge information which is a mental process that can practically be performed with pen and paper The use of a database and profile hosted by an application amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 5-6, 16 recite transmitting data to a blockchain which amounts to using a computer as a tool to store information and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 8, 19 recites updating a benefaction level and comparing to a criteria which is a mental process that ca practically be performed in the mind or with pen and paper. Providing data to a machine learning model amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the analysis. There is no integration into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites receiving data associated with a goal which is an abstract mental process. Receiving data from a client device amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 10 specifies the machine learning model is a neural network which amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and there is no integration into a practical application.
Claim 11 recites details about training the machine learning model which amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
Claim 21 recites the data representing the actions performed by the workers which is data obtained from sub-systems. This amounts to using a computer as a tool to gather data and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 22 recites additional steps of the method to associate benefaction ratings with benefaction categories. This is an abstract mental process than can practically be performed in the mind or with pen and paper and certain method of organizing human activity as in claim 1. There is no integration into a practical application.
Claim 23 recites extracting from model outputs, a benefaction level which is an abstract mental process and certain method of organizing human activity as in claim 1. Using a machine learning model amounts to using a computer as a tool to implement a mathematical algorithm and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 24 recites additional steps of the method and describes index values. This is an abstract mental process than can practically be performed in the mind or with pen and paper and certain method of organizing human activity as in claim 1. There is no integration into a practical application.
The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually, the system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the outstanding rejections as indicated above. The closest prior art includes Rankins, US 2024/0330822, El Kharzazi, US 2019/0180244, George, US 2003/0158818 and Smith, US 2011/0276356. These references, taken alone or in combination, fail to teach the invention as claimed. Applicant' s reply makes evident the reason for allowance, satisfying the record as a whole as required by rule 37 CFR 1.104(e). In this case, the substance of applicant' s remarks filed on 05/11/2026, pages 17-20, point out the reason claims are patentable over the prior art of record (see MPEP 1302.14).
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gibson et al, US 2015/0095120 – Objective Metrics Measuring Value of Employees - the employee evaluator service generates an overall contribution score for a particular employee based at least in part on summing the particular employees one or more outcome weights
Willis et al, US 2014/0372331 – Methods and Apparatus Having Applicability to Succession Planning - contribution score 830 may represent an overall assessment of the employee's contribution to the professional community, and may be computed in any suitable way; Different badges may be awarded in recognition of different accomplishments and/or events. For example, an employee may receive a badge for completing a particular training course, and another badge for having a positive impression provided by another employee
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 JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights