DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1-18 are considered in this Office 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 .
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.
Alice – Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 10 are directed at limitations for receive base information, the base information including at least staff information and financial information (Collecting Information, an observation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Behavior, reporting social data; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), calculate baseline measures based on at least the base information (Analyzing the Collected Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Behavior, reporting social data; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), receive client information from at least one of the plurality of the case worker workstations, the client information including at least need information, goal information and barrier information for a client (Collecting Information, an observation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Behavior, reporting social data; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), receive client service information from at least one of the plurality of the case worker workstations, the service information including at least services rendered information, progress information and outcome information for the client (Collecting Information, an observation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Behavior, reporting social data; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), derive, in real time, social impact data based on a comparison of the received client information and the received client service information with the baseline measures (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Behavior, reporting social data; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), provide in real time client the social impact data as tangible data to an administrator workstation (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an evaluation and judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Behavior, reporting social data; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of organizing and tracking information for managing transactions, a Commercial Interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a service performance system, service performance server, case worker workstations, and administrator workstation, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Organizing and Tracking information for Managing Human Behavior. For example, calculating baseline measures based on at least the baseline information encompasses any manager, supervisor, etc. getting staff and financial information from their staff and then giving baseline scores such as 5s to each of them, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for organizing and tracking information for Managing Human Behavior, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The system, server, and workstations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the collecting and transmitting steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0104] It will be appreciated by one of skill in the art that the present methods, systems, software and databases can be implemented on a number of computing platforms, and that FIG. 11 is only a representative computing platform, and is not intended to limit the scope of the claimed invention. For example, multiprocessor units with multiple CPUs or cores can be used, as well as distributed computing platforms in which computations are made across a network by a plurality of computing units working in conjunction using a specified algorithm. The computing platforms may be fixed or portable, and data collection can be performed by one unit (e.g. a handheld unit) with the collected information being reported to a fixed workstation or database which is formed by a computer in conjunction with mass storage ”
Which states that any type of suitable computing platform/device can be used, such as any personal computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, etc., to perform the abstract limitations, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. For the collecting and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the system, server, workstations, etc., nor the collecting and transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 1-9 and 11-18 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection and other rejections.
The closest prior art of record are Driessnack (U.S. Publication No. 2012/021,5574), Miller (U.S. 2011/029,5643), and Lubrecht (U.S. Publication No. 2006,016,1883). Driessnack, a system and method for performance management, teaches using received base information, the base information including employee and financial information, calculating baseline measures based on the base information, receiving client information from at least one of the plurality of the case worker workstations, the client information including at least need information, goal information and barrier information for a client, it does not explicitly state caseworkers are involved in the process or determination in real time of a social impact data. Miller, an accelerated process improvement framework system and method, teaches defining a baseline configuration for management of employees, determining profiles of ideal candidates, a determined baseline business performance, and a cost baseline, but it does not teach social workers as being part of the process, nor does it teach use of need information, goal information, and barrier information. Lubrecht, a method and system for capacity management, teaches measures of performance, impacts being determined based on staff information, and determination of performance reports for workers, but it does not teach case workers being used in the process and method, nor does it teach the baseline measures. None of the above prior art explicitly teaches this aspect of utilizing baseline measures which are calculated from staff and financial information, then using need, goal, and barrier information, for case workers, to derive a social impact based on the comparison, as claimed and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1-18 are allowable over the prior art of record, and are objected to as provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20120215574 A1
Driessnack; John D. et al.
SYSTEM, METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR ENHANCED PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
US 20110295643 A1
Miller; Michael P. et al.
ACCELERATED PROCESS IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK
US 20060161883 A1
Lubrecht; Michael D. et al.
Methods for capacity management
US 20150269617 A1
Mikurak; Michael G.
Increased Visibility During Order Management in a Network-Based Supply Chain Environment
US 20120259722 A1
MIKURAK; Michael G.
INCREASED VISIBILITY DURING ORDER MANAGEMENT IN A NETWORK-BASED SUPPLY CHAIN ENVIRONMENT
US 20120046999 A1
Jayaraman; Sairam et al.
Managing and Monitoring Continuous Improvement in Information Technology Services
US 20060161884 A1
Lubrecht; Michael D. et al.
Methods for managing capacity
US 20040107125 A1
Guheen, Michael F. et al.
Business alliance identification in a web architecture
US 8355926 B1
Hinz; Stephen et al.
Health and life sciences medicaid high performance capability assessment
US 7167844 B1
Leong; Cheah Wee et al.
Electronic menu document creator in a virtual financial environment
US 6629081 B1
Cornelius; Richard D. et al.
Account settlement and financing in an e-commerce environment
US 20210374185 A1
Orumchian; Kim et al.
Forecasting System and Method Using Change Data Based Database Storage for Efficient ASP and Web Application
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683 6/3/2025