DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 5/29/2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 17, amendments to claims 1, 7, 11, 12, 16, and addition of claim 21 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-16 and 18-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 5/29/2026 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full.
In regards to items III and IV of remarks, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The combination of Hendrix and Garcia teaches determining overtime rules based on location data, or geolocation data, and generating an alert when overtime caps apply. Hendrix teaches geolocation data of employees and determining locality-based rules of overtime for employees based on said data. Garcia teaches generating an alert when overtime caps apply. See citations in rejection below. Based on amendments, the 102 rejection is overcome. Claims are rejected under 103 in light of Hendrix and at least Garcia. 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 wage determination in Hendrix, with the known technique of overtime eligibility in Garcia, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for overtime management. See para. 36 of Garcia.
Regarding pages 11-14 of remarks, adding a further element to the GUI, as claimed, does not render the claims subject matter eligible. The problem to be solved by the invention, according to the application’s specification, is directed to adjusting employees’ schedules to minimize unnecessary overtime. This is directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activity, including fundamental economic principles and commercial or legal interactions (specifically mitigating risk and business relations). The claimed computer(s) with graphical user interfaces (GUIs) are seen as using computing technology as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Example 37 of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) is directed to rearranging computer icons, a subject matter inherent to computing technologies. In this way it is seen as an improvement in computing technology. In present claims, the GUI is used to overlay information. This technique of overlaying information is not exclusive to computing systems.
Regarding pages 13 and 14 of remarks, Examiner is not relying on an finding of well-understood, routine or conventional activity to indicate subject matter ineligibility.
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 1-16 and 18-21 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: a prevailing wage determination system, data, location data, wage data based on location, identify and match classifications of the data, and determine compensations based on the matched classes, including fringe benefit amounts/allocations. Claim 16 recites: generating a schedule based on the data, identifying overtime based on the data, and determine whether the schedule includes overtime. Claim 20 recites: generate fringe benefit statements based on the amounts/allocations, receive modified first data, identify class changes, and generate a modified fringe statement. 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 payroll.
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 processor, memory, software, a GUI, data transmission, and a computing device, individually and in combination, merely use a computer (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 claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites sending and receiving data, compensations, generating reports, displaying reports. Claim 3 recites generating statements, transmitting statements. Claim 4 recites generating and displaying reports. Claim 5 recites generating and displaying statements. Claim 6 recites data analysis, user device notifications of results, report generations and display. Claims 8 and 9 recite data displayed in a GUI. Claim 10 recites report generation and display. Claim 11 recites data. Claim 12 recites data filtering, timesheet generation, data transmission and displaying, time sheet approval, via a GUI. Claim 13 recites data correction and display via a GUI. Claims 14 and 15 recite machine learning data analysis. Claims 17 and 21 recites overtime schedule generation and data display on a GUI. Claims 18 and 19 recite user input via a GUI. These claims are seen as ineligible for the same reasons as claims 1, 16 and 20. The combination of the use of a GUI, including overlaying information, is seen as applying general purpose computing technology in its ordinary capacity to implement the abstract idea.
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 1-5, 8-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrix (US 20140279610) in view of Garcia (US 2004/0093256).
Claim 1. Hendrix teaches an automated prevailing wage determination system comprising:
one or more processors; and (para. 234 showing processor based electronic device)
memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the system to: (para. 234 showing processor based electronic device)
receive or retrieve (para. 235 showing data transmission) first data and location data associated with the first data; (para. 236 showing database with employee and work location data)
receive or retrieve wage data based on the location data; (para. 236 showing wage data in addition to location data; para. 252 showing determination of wages based on locale-based regulations)
identify one or more classifications based on the first data; (para. 213 showing classification of work)
match the one or more classifications with the wage data; (para. 213 showing wage determination based on classification)
receive or retrieve second data associated with one or more users and the first data; (para. 216 showing multiple types of data pertaining to wages)
automatically determine one or more compensations based on the associated matched one or more classifications, second data, and wage data, wherein the one or more compensations comprises one or more fringe benefit amounts and one or more fringe benefit allocations; (para. 216 showing wage and fringe benefits determination from said database; para. 97 showing fringe benefits allocated to overtime)
generate a first graphical user interface (GUI) comprising the one or more compensations; and (para. 14 showing display over computer for fringe benefit information)
cause the system or another computing device to display the first GUI. (para. 315 showing report being displayed)
Hendrix teaches overtime rules associated with the location data. (para. 99 showing United States-based regulations governing overtime rules.) Hendrix does not, but Garcia teaches: generate a first graphical user interface (GUI) comprising an indication whether an overtime benefit cap applies based on overtime rules associated with the location data. (Garcia para. 37 showing alert if overtime cap applies)
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 wage determination in Hendrix, with the known technique of overtime eligibility in Garcia, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for overtime management. See para. 36 of Garcia.
Claim 2. Hendrix as modified by Garcia teaches the automated prevailing wage determination system of claim 1. Hendrix teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the system to:
transmit the one or more compensations to a computing device configured to generate one or more reports with the one or more fringe benefit amounts and the one or more fringe benefit allocations based on the matched classifications, the first data, the wage data, and the second data; and (para. 38 showing computer for generating said reports; para. 232 showing transmission to said computer)
cause the computing device to display the report in a second GUI. (para. 315 showing display of reports on computer)
Claim 3. Hendrix as modified by Garcia teaches the automated prevailing wage determination system of claim 2. Hendrix teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the system to:
generate one or more fringe benefit statements associated with the one or more classifications; and (para. 315 showing monthly report for fringe hours)
transmit the one or more fringe benefit statements to the computing device for display in a third GUI. (para. 315 showing display of reports on computer)
Claim 4. Hendrix as modified by Garcia teaches the automated prevailing wage determination system of claim 1. Hendrix teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the system to:
generate one or more reports comprising the one or more compensations based on the matched classifications, the first data, the wage data, and the second data; and (para. 315 showing monthly report for fringe hours)
cause the system or another computing device to display the one or more reports in a second GUI, (para. 315 showing display of reports on computer)
wherein the one or more compensations further comprise wages. (para. 315 showing monthly report for fringe hours)
Claim 5. Hendrix as modified by Garcia teaches the automated prevailing wage determination system of claim 4. Hendrix teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the system to:
generate one or more fringe benefit statements associated with the one or more classifications; and (para. 315 showing monthly report for fringe hours)
cause the system or the another computing device to display the one or more fringe benefit statements in the second GUI. (para. 315 showing display of reports on computer)
Claim 7. Hendrix as modified by Garcia teaches the automated prevailing wage determination system of claim 1. Hendrix teaches wherein determining the one or more compensations comprises:
identifying overtime rules associated with the location data; (para. 190 showing overtime rules associated with employee data; para. 246 showing location data used to determine fringe benefit/overtime benefit)
identifying at least one user with overtime according to the overtime rules; (para. 190 showing employee with overtime)
responsive to the overtime rules do not comprise the overtime benefit cap, determining one or more overtime fringe benefits amounts based on the one or more overtime rates, (para. 243 showing determination of overtime)
wherein the one or more fringe benefit amounts comprise the one or more overtime fringe benefit amounts. (para. 190 showing overtime as part of fringe benefits)
Hendrix teaches overtime practices. It does not, but Garcia teaches: determining whether the overtime rules comprise an overtime benefit cap; and (para. 14 showing overtime limit analysis)
responsive to determining that the overtime rules comprise the overtime benefit cap, determining overtime one or more fringe benefit amounts based on a rate less than one or more overtime rates. (para. 36 showing overtime determination under cap)
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 wage determination in Hendrix, with the known technique of overtime eligibility in Garcia, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for overtime management. See para. 36 of Garcia.
Claim 8. Hendrix as modified by Garcia teaches the automated prevailing wage determination system of claim 1. Hendrix teaches wherein the first GUI comprises the one or more compensations for one pay period. (para. 252 showing pay period data in report)
Claim 9. Hendrix as modified by Garcia teaches the automated prevailing wage determination system of claim 1. Hendrix teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the system to:
automatically modify first GUI and the one or more compensations based retrieved or received predetermined increase data. (para. 127 showing pay increase implemented in said system)
Claim 10. Hendrix as modified by Garcia teaches the automated prevailing wage determination system of claim 1. Hendrix teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the system to:
generate one or more compliance reports based on the one or more compensations; and (para. 315 showing monthly compliance reports)
cause the system or another computing device to display the one or more compliance reports in a second GUI. (para. 315 showing display of reports on computer)
Claim 11. Hendrix as modified by Garcia teaches the automated prevailing wage determination system of claim 1. Hendrix teaches wherein the second data comprises time data and (para. 295 showing employee attendance data) associated location data for at least one first user (para. 236 showing work location data) received from at least one first user device associated with the at least one first user. (para. 11 showing computer for client/user information)
Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. Additionally, Hendrix teaches: generate one or more fringe benefit statements associated with the one or more classifications and based on the one or more fringe benefit amounts and the one or more fringe benefit allocations; and (para. 315 showing monthly report for fringe hours)
cause the system or another computing device to display the one or more fringe benefit statements in a graphical user interface (GUI); (para. 315 showing display of reports on computer)
receive modified first data; (para. 51 showing modified data)
identify one or more classifications changes based on the modified first data; (para. 51 showing classification modifications)
generate one or more modified fringe benefit statements based on the one or more classifications; (para. 315 showing monthly report for fringe hours)
cause the system or the another computing device to display the one or more modified fringe benefit statements. (para. 315 showing display of reports on computer)
Hendrix teaches overtime rules associated with the location data. (para. 99 showing United States-based regulations governing overtime rules.) Hendrix does not, but Garcia teaches: cause the system or the another computing device to display an indication whether an overtime benefit cap applies based on overtime rules in a modified GUI. (Garcia para. 37 showing alert if overtime cap applies)
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 wage determination in Hendrix, with the known technique of overtime eligibility in Garcia, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for overtime management. See para. 36 of Garcia.
Claims 6, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrix (US 20140279610) in view of Garcia, and in further view of Wayne (US 2024/0020756).
Claim 6. Hendrix as modified by Garcia teaches the automated prevailing wage determination system of claim 4, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the system to:
determine that prevailing wages apply to the first data; (para. 91 showing determination of applicability regarding wages and fringe benefits for certain contracts)
responsive to determining that the prevailing wages does not apply, (para. 121 showing determination of non-applicability for certain data) generate a notification from which the first data was received indicating that the prevailing wages do not appear to be required; and (para. 51 and 52 showing notifying relevant parties for any eligibility determinations)
responsive to determining the prevailing wages applies:
receive or retrieve the wage data based on the location data; (para. 236 showing wage data in addition to location data)
identify the one or more classifications based on the first data and the second data; (para. 213 showing classification of work)
match the one or more classifications with the wage data; (para. 213 showing wage determination based on classification)
determine the one or more compensations based on the associated one or more matched classifications and the wage data; (para. 216 showing wage and fringe benefits determination from said database; para. 97 showing fringe benefits allocated to overtime)
generate the report comprising the one or more compensations based on the one or more matched classifications, the first data, the second data, and the wage data; and (para. 315 showing monthly report for fringe hours)
cause the system or another computing device to display the report in the first GUI. (para. 315 showing display of reports on computer)
Hendrix as modified by Garcia does not, but Wayne teaches: transmit a notification to a user device. (para. 634 showing alert message in computer)
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 wage determination in Hendrix as modified by Garcia, with the known technique of computerized notifications in Wayne, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for convenient data transmission. See para. 634 of Wayne for alerting a user in a computerized environment.
Claim 12. Hendrix as modified by Garcia teaches the automated prevailing wage determination system of claim 11, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the system to:
set a geofence based on the first data and the location data; (para. 216 showing localities)
the associated location data is associated geolocation data; (para. 334 showing user address as locale data for employees)
determine whether the associated geolocation data corresponds to the geofence; (para. 208 showing locality and determination of subsequent applicability)
responsive to determining that the associated geolocation data corresponds to the geofence: (para. 194 showing procession of payment when locality applies)
store the time data received from the at least one first user device; (para. 295 showing attendance for employees in computer)
Hendrix teaches software GUI and data transmission and input. It does not, but Wayne teaches:
generate a time sheet for the at least one first user associated with the at least one first user device with stored time data; (para. 634 showing schedule generation in GUI)
transmit each time sheet to one or more second user devices for display in a second GUI; and (para. 6 transmitting schedule; para. 634 showing displaying schedule)
receive approval of one or more time sheets from the one or more second user devices via the second GUI, (para. 390 showing approval of schedule)
wherein generating the one or more compensations is further based on the approved one or more time sheets. (para. 381 showing compensation based on schedule)
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 wage determination in Hendrix as modified by Garcia, with the known technique of scheduling oversight, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for management of overtime pay. See para. 630 of Wayne.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrix (US 20140279610) in view of Garcia, and in further view of Sharma (US 2022/0019730).
Claim 13. Hendrix as modified by Garcia teaches the automated prevailing wage determination system of claim 1. Hendrix teaches determining correct classifications in paragraphs 51 and 52, but not explicitly by the computer system. Sharma is, like present invention, directed to classification accuracy.
Hendrix does not, but Sharma, in para. 55, teaches: wherein the second data comprises one or more images, and (para. 55 showing image content)
wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the system to:
dynamically determine whether the matched one or more classifications are accurate; and (para. 55 showing threshold determination of confidence)
responsive to dynamically determining at least one matched classification of the one or more matched classifications are not accurate:
cause one or more user devices to display a second GUI comprising a prompt or indication of a discrepancy and one or more editable fields with at least one editable field of the one or more editable fields associated with the at least one matched classification; (label review team software for modification of class)
receive modified classification data via the at least one editable field; and (label review team software for modification of class)
modify the first GUI based on the modified classification data. (user application is updated)
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 wage determination in Hendrix as modified by Garcia, with the known technique of classification correction in Sharma, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for automated classification. See para. 55 of Sharma.
Claim 14. Hendrix as modified by Garcia and Sharma teaches the automated prevailing wage determination system of claim 13. Hendrix as modified by Garcia does not, but Sharma teaches wherein dynamically determining whether the matched one or more classifications are accurate by comparing, via a machine learning model trained to detect similarities in images, the one or more images to one or more stored images associated with the one or more classifications. (para. 55 showing machine learning model performing object and similarity recognition on image data using reference images)
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 wage determination in Hendrix as modified by Garcia, with the known technique of classification correction in Sharma, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for automated classification. See para. 55 of Sharma.
Claim 15. Hendrix as modified by Garcia and Sharma teaches the automated prevailing wage determination system of claim 13. Hendrix as modified by Garcia does not, but Sharma teaches wherein dynamically determining whether the matched one or more classifications are accurate by identifying, via a machine learning model trained to detect objects in images associated with the one or more classifications, an object in the one or more images indicative of the one or more classifications. (para. 55 showing machine learning model performing object and similarity recognition on image data using reference images)
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 wage determination in Hendrix as modified by Garcia, with the known technique of classification correction in Sharma, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for automated classification. See para. 55 of Sharma.
Reasons why the Claims Would be Allowable over Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claims 16-19 and 21:
No prior art or non-patent literature has been found that teaches the claimed limitations of overlaying the schedules regarding overtime and/or compensation optimization in a GUI, in combination with the fringe benefits system and scheduling systems, the overtime reduction system, and in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claim(s).
The closest non-patent literature that reads on the Application is Buchan, Fringe Benefit tax on motor vehicles: Complexity and compliance cost. This paper describes a similar problem that is to be solved by present application, but does not detail the present invention. The closest prior art that reads on the claims are cited in the current rejections. Neither reference alone or in combination teach the combinations of the scheduling overlays, overtime reduction, and fringe benefits compliance system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this action is made final. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 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 TUTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights