DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 9/13/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: the claims fall under statutory categories of processes and/or machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite: receiving a request to access a timesheet, the request including a user identifier of the contingent laborer; verifying the identifier; obtaining timesheet information including time entry records for one or more shifts the worker has worked in a given time period; providing the information for display; predicting whether the laborer is clocking in or out based on the timesheet information; updating the timesheet application to accentuate a clock in or clock out; receiving a clock value indicating a time during which the laborer is clocking in or out; generating a record based on the clock value; and providing the record such that the user has updated timesheet information. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically fundamental economic behavior, including employee worker logs. These limitations also include business relations, including commercial or legal interactions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Said judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements: a user device, an application, a user interface for device, updating the interface based on a prediction to accentuate a certain button, obtaining and providing data to a server, memory, processor, and non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, individually and in combination, merely use a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f.) The claims use these machines in their ordinary capacity for the purpose of applying the abstract idea(s). Therefore, these limitations are invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Then, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Said claims recite additional elements as listed above, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2, they use computers or other machinery to perform an abstract idea in such a way that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computers or other machinery. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computers or other machinery cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites the server supporting a vendor management system (VMS), said VMS being a single source for information. This is not seen as improvements to functioning of a computer, as interoperability between computers is seen as using computer technology in its ordinary capacity.
Claim 3 recites obtaining information, storing information, and verifying identifier based on a matching stored identifier. Using computers such as servers and devices does not change the aforementioned analysis.
Claims 4, 11 and 17 recite identifying two most recent clock values, determining a difference in time being greater than an amount; predicting a clock in, in response to the difference; determining said difference is smaller than amount; determining the most recent clock value is within a difference of the current time; and predicting a clock in or out based on said difference. Claims 5, 12 and 18 recite identifying a most recent clock value in the records, determining a difference in said value and current time, predicting a clock in or out based on said difference. This is seen as data analysis and can be a mental process.
Claims 6, 13 and 19 recite incorrectly predicting the clock in or out; where the clock in or out value corresponds to whichever portion of the application is not accentuated; determining a discrepancy based on receiving said corresponding value; generating an exception message; and providing said message to a user. Using elements of computing technology such as user interfaces and devices is addressed in the independent claim’s analysis.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 recite pinging the server periodically to update another user interface (UI) to display network status. This is seen as using computing technology in its ordinary capacity and does not represent an improvement in computer functionality.
Claims 8 and 15 recite appending the record to a list that includes records for the labor shifts worked in a time period; providing the application with the list for real-time access to update timesheet information. This is seen as part of said abstract idea(s). Using a server is addressed in the independent claim’s analysis.
For these reasons the claims are not subject matter eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenson (US 2014/0278629) in view of Gala (US 2010/0312606).
Claims 1, 9 and 16. Stephenson teaches a method for managing timesheet information of a contingent laborer, comprising:
receiving, by a user device, a request to access a timesheet application, the request including a user identifier of the contingent laborer; (Stephenson paragraphs 27-30 showing user device with display and user identifier (ID) accessing timesheet application)
verifying, by the user device, the user identifier of the contingent laborer; (para. 27 showing verification of user ID)
obtaining, by the user device, timesheet information of the contingent laborer from an application server, the timesheet information including one or more time-entry records for one or more shifts that the contingent laborer has worked in a given time period; (para. 17 showing server sending and receiving data for timesheet updating)
providing the timesheet information of the contingent laborer for display on a user interface of the user device; (para. 37 showing timesheet information displayed for user)
predicting, by the user device, whether the contingent laborer is clocking-in or clocking-out based at least in part on the timesheet information of the contingent laborer; (para. 35 showing prediction of clock in or clock out based on last recorded status)
receiving, by the user device, a clock value indicating a time during which the contingent laborer is clocking-in or clocking-out; (para. 35 showing reception of time stamp data recognized as clock in or out)
generating, by the user device, a time-entry record based on the clock value; and (para. 35, recording said event)
providing, by the user device, the time-entry record to the application server such that the user device and the application server have updated timesheet information for the contingent laborer. (para. 17 showing server storing updated records)
Stephenson does not teach updating, by the user device and based on the prediction, the user interface of the timesheet application to accentuate either a clock-in button or a clock-out button. However, Gala does at para. 39, showing predicting most likely employee time events, including a clock out, based on timesheet data analysis. Gala para. 36 showing color differentiation between available and unavailable choices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of timekeeping analysis in Stephenson, with the known technique of dynamic user interfaces (UI) in Gala, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for less options for users, resulting in less chances of wrong inputs (Gala para. 39 showing available options limited to logical outcomes.)
Claim 9 additionally: a memory storing instructions, and a processor that executes instructions. (Stephenson para. 55 showing memory and processor with software)
Claim 16 additionally: a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions. (Stephenson para. 55 showing RAM)
Claim 3. Said modified Stephenson teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining, from the application server, profile information for a group of contingent laborers scheduled to work at a worksite, the profile information including a set of user identifiers where each user identifier corresponds to a respective contingent laborer; (para. 29 showing employee groups, with employee IDs)
storing the profile information for the group of contingent laborers locally on the user device; and (para. 17 showing localized method)
wherein verifying the user identifier of the contingent laborer comprises:
verifying the user identifier of the contingent laborer based on determining that the user identifier matches a corresponding stored user identifier of the set of user identifiers. (para. 27 showing match of user ID)
Claims 5, 12 and 18. Said modified Stephenson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein predicting whether the contingent laborer is clocking-in or clocking-out comprises:
identifying a most recent clock value included in the one or more time-entry records, (para. 35 showing threshold time between stamps)
determining whether a difference in time between the most recent clock value and a current time clock value is greater than a threshold amount of time, and (para. 35 showing last recordation and current stamp being analyzed to compare with a threshold amount)
predicting whether the contingent laborer is clocking-in or clocking-out based at least in part on determining whether the difference in time is greater than the threshold amount of time. (para. 35, time is greater than 40 hours, so it is a check in)
Claims 8 and 15. Said modified Stephenson teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
appending the time-entry record to a list that includes the one or more time-entry records for the one or more shifts that the contingent laborer has worked in the given time period; and (Stephenson para. 16 showing list or record with shift and workweek data)
wherein providing the time-entry record to the application server comprises:
providing the application server with the list that includes the appended time- entry record such that the application server has real-time access to updated timesheet information of the contingent laborer. (para. 17 showing pushing of data to server for updated databases.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenson (US 2014/0278629) in view of Gala (US 2010/0312606), and in further view of Sundar (US 2019/0287071).
Claim 2. Said modified Stephenson teaches the method of claim 1. It does not teach wherein the application server supports a vendor management system (VMS) that is a single source of authority for the timesheet information of the contingent laborer. However, Sundar does at paragraph 67, showing integrating time management servers with a vendor management system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of timekeeping analysis in Stephenson, with the known technique of database integration in Sundar, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for updating of third-party information (Sundar para. 67 showing integration of systems.)
Claims 4, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenson (US 2014/0278629) in view of Gala (US 2010/0312606), and in further view of Slattery (US 2009/0133287).
Claims 4, 11 and 17. Said modified Stephenson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein predicting whether the contingent laborer is clocking-in or clocking-out comprises:
in response to determining that the difference in time is not greater than the first threshold amount of time: (Stephenson para. 35 showing time difference not greater than one threshold)
determining whether a time identified by a most recent clock value is within a second threshold amount of time of a current time, and (para. 35 showing most recent record compared to current time and a second threshold)
predicting whether the contingent laborer is clocking-in or clocking-out based on determining whether the time identified by the most recent clock value is within the second threshold amount of time of the current time. (para. 35, determining a clock status based on said second threshold.)
Stephenson does not teach the following, but Slattery does: identifying two clock values that represent the two most recent clock values included in the one or more time-entry records, (Slattery para. 74 showing time tracking records)
determining whether a difference in time between the two most recent clock values is greater than a first threshold amount of time, and (para. 74 showing difference in time between said records as a threshold)
in response to determining that the difference in time is greater than the first threshold amount of time, predicting that the contingent laborer is clocking-in, or (para. 74 showing clock values as greater than a threshold, determine a clock out and then clock in)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of timekeeping analysis in Stephenson, with the known technique of threshold-based timeout resets in Slattery, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for pausing the user’s work clock (Slattery para. 74 showing recording a clock out and clock in, in accordance with a threshold-based rule.)
Claims 6, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenson (US 2014/0278629) in view of Gala (US 2010/0312606), and in further view of Eck (US 2021/0398084).
Claims 6, 13 and 19. Said modified Stephenson teaches the method of claim 1. It does not teach the following, but Eck does: wherein predicting whether the contingent laborer is clocking-in or clocking-out comprises incorrectly predicting whether the contingent laborer is clocking-in or clocking-out; (Eck para. 23 showing time pairs created as an error.)
wherein the clock value that indicates the time during which the contingent laborer is clocking-in or clocking-out corresponds to whichever of the clock-in button or clock-out button is not accentuated on the user interface; and (Said modified Stephenson teaches the accentuated button elements and corresponding values. Eck teaches in para. 23 the possibility of such a system having errors.)
wherein the method further comprises:
determining that a timekeeping discrepancy is present based on receiving the clock value that corresponds to whichever of the clock-in button or clock-out button is not accentuated on the user interface; (Eck para. 24 showing determination of error.)
generating an exception message for the timekeeping discrepancy; and (para. 16, flagging error for review)
providing the exception message to a device or account of a user authorized to correct the timekeeping discrepancy. (para. 28 showing providing access to administrator.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of timekeeping analysis in Stephenson, with the known technique of error flagging and correction in Eck, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for correction of system errors (Eck para. 16 showing correction of errors.)
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenson (US 2014/0278629) in view of Gala (US 2010/0312606), and in further view of Spataro (US 2006/0053380).
Claims 7, 14 and 20. Said modified Stephenson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the contingent laborer is scheduled to work at a worksite. (para. 19 showing remote computer at worksite for employee.)
Said Stephenson does not teach the following, but Spataro does:
wherein the method further comprises:
periodically providing ping messages to the application server to cause the application server to update an administrator user interface of the timesheet application such that said updated administrator user interface displays information indicative of whether a network at the worksite is down. (para. 106 showing display of network status to server by pinging.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of timekeeping analysis in Stephenson, with the known technique of network pings in Spataro, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for indicating network status to a user (Spataro para. 106 showing status indicator in UI display.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Fahd Obeid, can be reached at 571-270-3324. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
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.
/AARON N TUTOR/Examiner, Art Unit 3687