DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prosecutorial Standing
2. This communication is in response to the Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on 01.26.2026.
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant's “Amendment and Request for Reconsideration” filed on 01.26.2026 has been considered. Claims 1, 9, and 16 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application, and will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, as detailed below.
4. Applicant's response by virtue of amendment to claims 1, 9, and 16 did not overcome the Examiner's rejection under 35 USC §101. Therefore, the 35 USC §101 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, i.e., an abstract idea, and because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than just an abstract idea.
Claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of methods and systems for increasing earnings visibility that use colors on a graphical user interface to color code earning opportunities.
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an earnings visibility system comprising:
receiving a request for extra time or time off, wherein the extra time or time off corresponds to a first-time interval;
displaying the first-time interval;
receiving a net staffing value for the first time interval;
receiving a payroll rule that specifies a percentage increase or decrease in pay based on the net staffing value for the first time interval;
assigning a color to a particular percentage increase or decrease in pay for the first time interval;
determining the percentage increase or decrease in pay for the first time interval based on the net staffing value for the first time interval; and
coloring the first-time interval based on the percentage increase or decrease in pay for the first time interval to increase visibility of earnings potential to the agent.
The examiner notes the limitations fall under two of the Groupings of Abstract Ideas - Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity/or Mental Processes, and/or Mathematical Concepts. Further, evidence is cited to: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, and buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
The claims can be classified under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as these can be forms of fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions, including: (methods and systems for increasing earnings visibility that use colors on a graphical user interface to color code earning opportunities).
The claims can also be classified under Mental Processes, as the limitations covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “displaying the first-time interval; receiving a net staffing value for the first time interval; receiving a payroll rule that specifies a percentage increase or decrease in pay based on the net staffing value for the first time interval; assigning a color to a particular percentage increase or decrease in pay for the first time interval; determining the percentage increase or decrease in pay for the first time interval based on the net staffing value for the first time interval; and coloring the first-time interval based on the percentage increase or decrease in pay for the first time interval to increase visibility of earnings potential to the agent”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing such steps in the mind or by pencil/paper (i.e., receiving, displaying, determining, coloring, and etc.). 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.
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include: a processor, a non-transitory computer readable medium, and a graphical user interface. These elements are described at a high level of generality and perform generic functions such as perform request operation from an agent. Accordingly, these additional elements and components, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality, do not improve the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, and do not provide a particular machine configuration in a meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a generic environment. Instead, the additional elements and components merely implement the abstract idea in a generic and conventional environment, and amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, such as perform request operation from an agent. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The claim does not include components that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements, considered individually and in combination, include: a processor, a non-transitory computer readable medium, and a graphical user interface to perform: (e.g., receiving request for extra time or time off). The elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of computer implementation.
Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., methods and systems for increasing earnings visibility that use colors on a graphical user interface to color code earning opportunities) without significantly more. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Furthermore, claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 define the same that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 9, and 16, are considered to be part of the abstract idea above and merely act to further limit it. In the dependent claims, the additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer functioning in a standard mode of operation or matters that are routine and conventional in the field. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Additionally, claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed on 01.26.2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the “the claims as a whole recite an ordered combination that achieves significantly more than mere color coding, including making various calculations and determinations to determine net staffing value, and calculating changes in pay based on net staffing value based on manager input, to display color coded variations based on the percentage pay change to an agent, all based on a time-off request or a request for extra time from an agent, and therefore, the claims are not directed to mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the limitations fall under two of the Groupings of Abstract Ideas - Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity/or Mental Processes, and/or Mathematical Concepts, as the rejection provides clear analysis for both above. For identifying certain methods of organizing human activities, there is no requirement for the activities to be “prevalent” or around for a “long period of time.” See Id.
The examiner notes that for the recitation and use for an earnings visibility system in the claim precludes the human with the aid of pencil and paper could to perform such steps of: displaying the first-time interval; receiving a net staffing value for the first time interval; receiving a payroll rule that specifies a percentage increase or decrease in pay based on the net staffing value for the first time interval; assigning a color to a particular percentage increase or decrease in pay for the first time interval; determining the percentage increase or decrease in pay for the first time interval based on the net staffing value for the first time interval; and coloring the first-time interval based on the percentage increase or decrease in pay for the first time interval to increase visibility of earnings potential to the agent. 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 “Certain method of organizing human activity and/or Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The examiner further noted above that earnings visibility system is recited at a high level of generality.
The examiner notes the claim does not include additional elements that are enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of involving use of a computing user device to perform such steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component thus cannot provide an inventive concept. Again, such features are noted to be elements that are routine, well-understood and conventional.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the 101 rejection is sustained.
Conclusion
8. 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 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.
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached on 517-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
11. 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.
/Garcia Ade/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights