DETAILED 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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 03/04/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 11, 12, 17, and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 18 and 19 have been canceled.
Claims 1-17 and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 17-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 17-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-20, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 18-19 have been withdrawn in light of the cancellation of claims 18 and 19, but the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-17 and 20 have been maintained.
First, Applicant argues across pages 11-14 that the claims do not recite a judicial exception at Step 2A Prong One. Applicant argues on pages 12-13 that the claims allegedly do not recite a Mental Process because the step of storing rules in electronic form as defined by an administrator using a respective device, the rules each comprising conditional logic for respective workforce statuses, and a corresponding task being performed by the server system in accordance with each gating requirement of the corresponding conditional logic being satisfied are allegedly unable to be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. Applicant argues that the claims are clear that the model is “computationally complex” enough such that it cannot be classified as a mental process. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the defining rules using a respective device and storing of rules “electronically”, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.C. recites “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer…examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process”. In the instant case, the defining of rules by an administrator using a respective device and the storage of rules “electronically” fit all three considerations. In view of the claims and specification [0141], the use of a respective device to define the rules is using a generic computer as a tool to record abstract rules (the conditional logic to determine what policy(ies) apply to which absences) in a computing environment. Instead of a human determining/thinking of the conditional logic regarding the policies and remembering and/or writing down the rules, the administrator is using the generic computer to record the rules in a computer environment.
Regarding the task being performed by a server based on the gating requirements of the conditional logic being met, Examiner again notes that this limitation also applies to the 3 considerations above from MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Namely, in view of the specification [0141]-[0142], the task includes approving an absence request if the conditional logic is satisfied. While a server is recited as performing the task, the server is generic computer being used as a tool to take the approval of an absence request if policies and procedures are complied with and performing the task in a computing environment. For example, a human manager can review a company’s leave policy and/or applicable laws, see how an absence request complies/does not comply with the policies/laws, and issue a verbal and/or written approval for the absence request if the absence request complies with the policies/laws.
Regarding the “first model” being a “computationally complex output”, the claims do not recite a “first model” that Applicant appears to be arguing. Regarding the “computational complexity”, Examiner notes that the application of conditional logic and gating requirements covers applying various checklists to workforce data and taking a prescribed action if the conditions of the checklist are satisfied. While the “gating requirements”, which Examiner notes are not explicitly recited nor described in the specification, may add a requirement as to the sequence in which the conditional logic is applied to the workforce data, a human would be able to take the facts of an employee absence/absence request and determine which policy/laws were applicable to the particular absence. Applicant’s arguments that the claims do not recite a Mental Process are not persuasive.
On pages 13-14 Applicant argues that the claims do not recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claims allegedly do not “recite or relate to economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk”. Examiner respectfully notes that this argument is moot because the 09/05/2025 Non-Final Rejection did not classify the claims as reciting “economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk” but instead classified the claims as reciting “commercial interactions” (see 0905/2025 Office Action pages 5-6). While not argued by Applicant, the claims recite commercial interactions because the claims at least recite a business relationship between the absentee management system and the various entities (“business organizations such as small business and international corporations, government agencies such regional government departments and/or educational institutions, and/or non-profit organizations such as charities” form specification [0054]) in the form of the absentee management system performing workforce status management on behalf of the various entities. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments that the claims do not recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity are not persuasive. The claims recite a Mental Process and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity at Step 2A Prong One.
Next, Applicant argues across pages 14-18 that the claims are eligible at Step 2A Prong Two because they allegedly integrate any abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant argues in particular that the claimed invention integrates its judicial exceptions into a practical application by improving another technology or technical field. Applicant argues that the claimed invention meets the standard outlined in McRO, and states that the claimed limitations “pertain to technologically complex systems and methods using computer-implemented processes” to generate reports and “enhance computer functionality be enabling the updating of the corresponding content logic by the administrator”. Applicant argues that the claims overcome the prior art drawbacks of managing workforces within an evolving company while maintaining compliance with policies before citing to several paragraphs of the specification. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
First Examiner notes that the particular limitations, also argued above, fall into the abstract idea of the claimed invention (defining absence rules with conditional logic, performing tasks when the gating requirements of the conditional logic is satisfied). These limitations, in combination with the other limitations of claim 1 not specifically argued, do not recite a technologically complex system using a computer-implemented method. As discussed above, applying gating requirements and conditional logic to workforce data to determine whether the conditional logic is satisfies falls under a Mental Process. Performing such a Mental Process on a computer does not amount to an improvement in technology. The ability of an administrator to update the corresponding rules/conditional logic also does not amount to an improvement in technology. The ability to update rules may be an improvement to the abstract idea of workforce management, but MPEP 2016.05(a) II. states “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Specifically, the updating of rules/logic provides an improvement to the abstract idea by allowing rules to be changeable to suit the needs of an entity/organization using the system. However, updating absence policies is not rooted in computer technology. Absence rules can be updated and provided in writing to employees while providing the same benefits of allowing an organization/entity the flexibility to manage its workforce according to its needs. Additionally, the ability to update rules/logic of a computing system itself would not been seen by one of ordinary skill in the art as an improvement to technology. While the changed logic may improve the abstract algorithm, modifying a program would not be recognized as an improvement to the field of computing technology itself.
Regarding the problems with prior art of managing workforces within an evolving company and ensuring compliance, the problem emphasized by Applicant in [0003] of individual employees managing various regulations, rules, and requests is a problem in the abstract idea of operating an HR department (the commercial interaction). Paragraph [0003] does not recite a technological problem being solved, but a business problem of an understaffed or “ill-equipped” department. While paragraph [0004] recites missing features from a portal used to manage absences, the problem emphasized in the specification is the “human aspect” of managing absences of tracking down desired information, not any technical hurdle preventing such information from being obtained.
Paragraph [0008] notes the reduction of “man-machine interaction” of the claimed system while still providing accurate information. In contrast to an improvement of technology like that recited in McRO, the reduction of “man-machine interface” by tracking down desired information automatically is merely applying the judicial exception using generic computing components. Specifically, rather than being analogous to McRO as Applicant is claiming, the claimed invention is more analogous to FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which “Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer” was found not to amount an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a) I.). In the present claims, the creating of reports and analyzing of conditional logic being done quicker and more conveniently for supervisors, etc., but the speed and convenience of not having to analyze the policies and search for the desired information manually is provided by applying the abstract idea using a generic computing system. Furthermore, the lessening of the burden of a supervisor tracking down desired information can be achieved in a non-technical setting by outsourcing the analysis/data-collection to a human assistant or HR rep. In the claimed invention, the computing system is standing in for a human assistant/HR rep in gathering and presenting desired workforce information to a supervisor.
Similar analysis applies to the simplification of creating an absence request and reducing cognitive burden of employees recited in the emphasized portion of [0037]. The matching of an absence request to employee data to determine what options are available to an employee is part of the abstract idea where an increase in speed is the result of applying the abstract idea using a generic computing system. The cognitive burden on an employee and simplicity of creating an absence request would still be achieved by having a human HR rep review an employee’s data and present an employee’s options to them. Instead of outsourcing this portion of an employee creating an absence request from the employee to a human HR rep, the claimed invention is merely applying a generic computing system a human HR rep’s stead.
Regarding the arguments regarding insurability in the emphasized portion of [0038], Examiner notes that evidence of insurability is not recited in the claims, with an insurance entity only mentioned as an entity in dependent claim 10 with any recitation of an EOI application. Regardless, the problem discussed in this paragraph would be subject to the same analysis discussed above regarding [0008] and [0037]. Namely, the speed of the EOI process stems from the application of the process using a generic computing system instead of a human perform the steps of the abstract idea.
Finally, the reduction in compute resources over processing and transmitting data in an unrestricted manner as argued on page 18 is an improvement stemming from the abstract idea (the conditional logic/algorithm specifying which data to retrieve and analyze. This improvement to the algorithm does not amount to a technological improvement, as instructing a human to gather particular workforce data instead of unrestricted workforce data would also result in time and efficiency savings. Reducing a cognitive burden to a user and the user’s access to extraneous information is similarly not a technological improvement, as outsourcing report generation to a human assistant that does not display or show any extraneous information would similarly ease the cognitive burden on a user while also preventing them from accessing extraneous information.
The additional elements, as an ordered combination, align with the analysis of MPEP 2106.05(f) instead of MPEP 2106.05(a) as Applicant argues. Particularly, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”. In the present claims, as discussed in part above, the additional elements are used as tools to store rules comprising conditional logic and gating requirements, perform tasks based on whether the conditional logic/gating requirements are satisfied or not, receiving a request for a workforce status, receiving a workforce status feed, applying a set of the rules to the feed to determine a workforce status, and displaying the workforce status. Accordingly, the additional elements of the claims do not amount to an improvement to technology but instead an application of a judicial exception using generic computing components. The claims do not integrate their judicial exceptions into a practical application at Step 2A prong Two, and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Finally, Applicant argues across pages 18-20 that the claimed invention is eligible at Step 2B because the additional elements of the invention allegedly amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant particularly argues that claims provide an arrangement of additional elements that result in an improvement in determining the accounting of absences for the supervisor in a time and computationally efficient manner, specifically by using “predetermined content logic defined by one or more rules”. Applicant argues that, like BASCOM, the additional elements are specifically recited such that they represent a technical improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above the additional elements of the claims, when taken as an ordered combination, do not amount to a technical improvement but instead an application of the judicial exception using generic computing components. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (emphasis added). In contrast with BASCOM, in which the non-generic arrangement of additional elements provided a technical improvement, the arrangement of the server system, one or more processors, a memory, rules being in “electronic form”, a fist device, a plurality of devices, a second device, a third device, a display, and a respective device of the claimed invention are not arranged in a non-generic way as to provide a technical improvement. Indeed, Fig. 1 shows a server/client architecture of the system and the devices of the entities. Accordingly, the claimed invention is not analogous to BASCOM and does not amount to significantly more by providing a technical improvement.
Applicant additionally, argues that the claimed invention amounts to an inventive concept because it is allegedly not taught nor suggested by the prior art. While art arguments will be discussed later, Examiner notes that MPEP 2106.05 I. states “Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination… As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter… In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103… Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101” (emphasis original). Therefore, regardless of whether the claimed invention is taught in the prior art, the eligibility inquiry is separate from prior art considerations. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Accordingly, the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than its judicial exception at Step 2B. Applicant’s arguments regarding eligibility are not persuasive, and claims 1-17 and 20 still stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 20-22, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11, and 14-20 have been fully considered but are only partially persuasive. While claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11, and 14-20 are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11, 14-17, and 20 are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (with claims 18 and 19 being canceled) as will be shown below.
First, Applicant argues that Heyward does not explicitly teach “storing the plurality of rules in electronic form, in which each rule in the plurality of rules is defined, at least in part, by the administrator associated with the first entity using the respective device, in the plurality of devices, distinct from the first device”. While Examiner agrees that Heyward does not explicitly teach that the administrator setting up the rules for the employer is not taught in Heyward as doing so “at a distinct device” as claim 1 has been amended to require, Avitabile et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0031184, hereafter known as Avitabile) has been included as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to teach this feature.
Applicant further argues that Heyward does not teach “each rule in the plurality of rules includes the corresponding conditional logic for the respective workforce status in an enumerated plurality of workforce statuses for a respective employee at the first entity, and the corresponding task in a plurality of tasks is performed by the server system in accordance with each gating requirement in the one or more gating requirements of the corresponding conditional logic being satisfied” before citing to Figs. 3 and 4 and corresponding specification passages of Heyward and stating that the passages do not “identify further data and further confirming information through the leave request. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Examiner notes that Figs. 9-19, particularly Figs. 11A and 11B, were used in the Non-Final Rejection to teach the pre-amended limitations at issue, not the Figures and passages cited by Applicant. In Figures 11A and 11B, Heyward teaches conditional logic rules for determining a leave type based on verifying information in a leave request (i.e. does a leave request meet the Serious Health Condition requirement of step 1118). Regarding the claim amendments, these rules have corresponding conditional logic for determining a leave type as shown is the conditional logic steps in Fig. 11B and [0095]. While “gating requirements” lack sufficient written description support, Examiner is interpreting “gating requirements” as a set of conditional logic outcomes required to cause an action to take place. In the case of Heyward, the gating requirements of the conditional logic for an FMLA designation as shown in Fig. 11B include: A leave request satisfies the serious health condition requirement and a leave request is for the serious health condition of the employee are a gating requirement that, when satisfied, allows a leave to be designated as FMLA. As shown in Fig. 11B, there are several other combinations of conditional logic that are a gating requirement for an FMLA designation (i.e. serious health condition but for a minor child of an employee instead of the employee themselves). Accordingly, Heyward teaches that the rules have corresponding conditional logic comprising gating requirements that, when satisfied, cause a task (in the example above, designated leave as FMLA) to be performed by the system. These arguments by Applicant are not persuasive. However, Applicant’s amendment still necessitate the withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection and require other additional art to remedy the deficiencies of Heyward that will be discussed below.
Applicant argues on pages 22-24 that the various 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of dependent claims should be withdrawn because the various secondary references allegedly fail to remedy the alleged deficiencies of Heyward regarding amended claim 1. These arguments are not persuasive/moot because the various secondary references being argued in these sections are not used as a part of the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of amended claim 1. Accordingly, these arguments are not persuasive, and the claims still stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 has been amended to recite “the corresponding conditional logic comprises one or more gating requirements” in line 13 and “a corresponding task in a plurality of tasks is performed by the server system in accordance with each gating requirement in the one or more gating requirements of the corresponding conditional logic being satisfied, and the corresponding task in the plurality of tasks is not performed by the server system in accordance with each gating requirement in the one or more gating requirements of the corresponding conditional logic not being satisfied” (emphasis added). Neither Applicant’s specification as filed nor provisional applications 63/497,351 and 63/514,736 recite that the conditional logic comprises one or more gating requirements or that the task is/is not performed according to whether each gating requirement of the conditional logic has been satisfied or not. The paragraphs cited by Applicant in the 03/04/2026 Remarks as supporting the amendments to the claims, paragraphs [0147], [0152], and [0167], do not discuss gating requirements. In the specification as filed, paragraph [0147] recites examples of workforce statuses, [0152] recites employees logging on to the system to authenticate their requests for information, and [0167] recites the handling of evidence of insurability requests and reports. In the published version of the application [0147] recites the receipt of absence updates, [0152] recites the receipt of an absence query, and [0167] recites that requests for information comprise personal identifiable information. Conditional logic comprising gating requirements that need to be satisfied for a task to be performed are recited in none of the paragraphs cited by Applicant, nor elsewhere in the specification.
The closest the specification as filed appears to come to support the one or more gating requirements is in [0141], which states “each rule includes conditional logic to determine if a particular employee and/or absence request complies with requirements for a particular policy and/or ordinance”. However, while conditional logic determining whether an absence complies with requirements is recited, the conditional logic including gating requirements is not. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention in which the corresponding conditional logic comprises one or more gating requirements and that “a corresponding task in a plurality of tasks is performed by the server system in accordance with each gating requirement in the one or more gating requirements of the corresponding conditional logic being satisfied, and the corresponding task in the plurality of tasks is not performed by the server system in accordance with each gating requirement in the one or more gating requirements of the corresponding conditional logic not being satisfied”.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting “gating requirements” as a set of conditional logic outcomes required to cause an action to take place.
Additionally regarding claim 1, claim 1 has been amended to recite “applying some or all of the workforce status feed to a first set of rules, in the plurality of rules, associated with the first workforce status to receive a determination of working status of the first employee for the first workforce status” and “…determination of working status of the first employee…” (emphasis added) in the last two paragraphs.
Examiner notes that amended claim 1 keeps the following language from original claim 1 in the eighth paragraph: “receiving a request for information for a first workforce status in the enumerated plurality of workforce statuses from a second device, in the plurality of devices, associated with a first employee of the first entity, the first workforce status associated with a second employee at the first entity” (emphasis added). Furthermore, Applicant’s specification recites an employee requesting information about another employee (see specification [0146] “the request for information is a request for information about a particular absence type and/or employees requesting the particular absence type. For example, the second employee is a supervisor requesting information about supervisees that are currently on leave from the company”). Nowhere in the Applicant’s specification as filed, as published, or in the provisional applications is written description provided for a request for information being made by an employee regarding a first workforce status associated with another employee and themselves to determine their own working status. Paragraphs [0146]-[0157] of the specification as filed discuss the request for information and the creation of the report, but the request being received is from an employee/supervisor regarding at least one other employee to generate a report regarding the at least one other employee and not themselves. Fig. 7A shows and example of the report and [0079]-[0081] state that the report is for a supervisor reviewing absentee statuses of their employees. Accordingly, there is a lack of written description for the determination of the working status of the first employee who is submitting the request for information.
Furthermore, paragraphs [0146]-[0157] of the specification additionally do not discuss the application of a first set of rules associated with the first workforce status to the workforce status feed to determine a working status. Paragraph [0153] recites that the workforce status feed is analyzed/filtered by the system in response to the request for information, but [0155] recites that “the report includes a subset of data from the workforce status feed determined to be responsive to the request for information” indicating that the workforce status feed is filtered down to only include workforce statuses responsive to the request for a workforce status. There is no mention of a set of the plurality of rules being applied to the workforce status feed to determine working statuses. Looking elsewhere in the specification, [0071] indicates that an absentee status feed is communicated with indications of absence statuses of employees, and [0060] indicates that an absence status includes the category of absence. Therefore, instead of providing support for applying a set of the rules to the workforce status feed to determine a working status of an employee, Applicant’s disclosure indicates that the feed already has absence categories assigned and the workforce status feed is just filtered to only include a particular pre-determined status instead of applying the rules to the feed. There is accordingly a lack of written description for the application of a first set of rules to the workforce status feed in amended claim 1.
Finally, claim 1 has been amended to specify that the administrator defining rules uses “a respective device, in the plurality of devices, distinct from the first device”. A “respective device is recited in the specification in [0010] and [0155] as a device on which the generated report is displayed. An administrator defining rules is recited in paragraphs [0010] (“…(a) each rule in the plurality of rules is defined, at least in part, by an administrator associated with the first entity, (b) …”) and [0141] (“Each rule in the plurality of rules is defined (1104), at least in part, by an administrator associated with the first entity. For example, an administrator defines absence rules that comply with company policy and/or government ordinances”). Nowhere is Applicant’s specification as filed is the administrator contemplated as specifically defining rules using a distinct device from a first device associated with an entity. There is accordingly a lack of sufficient written description for the administrator specifically using a distinct device from a first device when defining the plurality of rules.
Therefore, amended claim 1 lacks sufficient written description and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Dependent claims 2-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by virtue of their dependence on rejected claim 1. Independent claims 17 and 20 are rejected for lacking sufficient written description for similar reasoning as discussed above regarding claim 1.
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 1-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite managing workforce absentee and leave data.
As an initial matter, claims 1-16 fall into at least the process category of statutory subject matter. Claim 17 fall into at least the manufacture category of statutory subject matter. Finally, claim 20 falls into at least the system category of statutory subject matter. Therefore, all claims fall into at least one of the statutory categories. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
In claim 1, the limitation of “A method performed at a server system, the server system comprising one or more processors and memory storing one or more programs that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the server system to perform the method, the method comprising: storing a plurality of rules in electronic form for a first entity of a plurality of entities, the first entity associated with a first device in a plurality of devices”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a server system, the server system comprising one or more processors and memory storing one or more programs that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the server system to perform the method”, “an electronic form”, and “a first device in a plurality of devices,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “wherein: each rule in the plurality of rules is defined, at least in part, by an administrator associated with the first entity using a respective device, in the plurality of devices, distinct from the first device, each rule in the plurality of rules comprises a corresponding conditional logic for a respective workforce status in an enumerated plurality of workforce statuses for a respective employee at the first entity, the corresponding conditional logic comprises one or more gating requirements, a corresponding task in a plurality of tasks is performed by the server system in accordance with each gating requirement in the one or more gating requirements of the corresponding conditional logic being satisfied, and the corresponding task in the plurality of tasks is not performed by the server system in accordance with each gating requirement in the one or more gating requirements of the corresponding conditional logic not being satisfied; receiving a request for information for a first workforce status in the enumerated plurality of workforce statuses from a second device, in the plurality of devices, associated with a first employee of the first entity, the first workforce status associated with a second employee at the first entity; in response to the request for information, receiving a workforce status feed from a third device in the plurality of devices, the third device associated with a second entity distinct from the first entity, the workforce status feed comprising a plurality of data elements associated with at least a subset of workforce statuses in the enumerated plurality of workforce statuses; applying some or all of the workforce status feed to a first set of rules, in the plurality of rules, associated with the first workforce status to receive a determination of working status of the first employee for the first workforce status; and in response to receiving the workforce status feed, generating a report comprising a notification of determination of working status of the first employee for the first workforce status, wherein the report is configured for displaying at a display of a respective device in the plurality of devices”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the concept of managing workforce absentee and leave data which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. A method, the method comprising: storing a plurality of rules for a first entity of a plurality of entities, wherein: each rule in the plurality of rules is defined, at least in part, by an administrator associated with the first entity, each rule in the plurality of rules comprises a corresponding conditional logic for a respective workforce status in an enumerated plurality of workforce statuses for a respective employee at the first entity, the corresponding conditional logic comprises one or more gating requirements, a corresponding task in a plurality of tasks is performed in accordance with each gating requirement in the one or more gating requirements of the corresponding conditional logic being satisfied, and the corresponding task in the plurality of tasks is not performed in accordance with each gating requirement in the one or more gating requirements of the corresponding conditional logic not being satisfied; receiving a request for information for a first workforce status in the enumerated plurality of workforce statuses from a first employee of the first entity, the first workforce status associated with a second employee at the first entity; in response to the request for information, receiving a workforce status feed from a second entity distinct from the first entity, the workforce status feed comprising a plurality of data elements associated with at least a subset of workforce statuses in the enumerated plurality of workforce statuses; applying some or all of the workforce status feed to a first set of rules, in the plurality of rules, associated with the first workforce status to receive a determination of working status of the first employee for the first workforce status; and in response to receiving the workforce status feed, generating a report comprising a notification of determination of working status of the first employee for the first workforce status, wherein the report is configured for displaying all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a server system, one or more processors, a memory storing one or more programs that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the server system to perform the method, storing the plurality of rules in “electronic form”, a fist device, a plurality of devices, a respective device distinct from the first device, a second device, a third device, a display, and a respective device. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a server system, one or more processors, a memory storing one or more programs that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the server system to perform the method, storing the plurality of rules in “electronic form”, a fist device, a plurality of devices, a respective device distinct from the first device, a second device, a third device, a display, and a respective device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also 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.
Claims 2-14 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 15 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of a login operation protocol. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a login operation protocol is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional element from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
In claim 17, the limitation of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to: store a plurality of rules in electronic form for a first entity of a plurality of entities, the first entity associated with a first device in a plurality of devices”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to”, “an electronic form”, and “a first device in a plurality of devices,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “wherein: each rule in the plurality of rules is defined, at least in part, by an administrator associated with the first entity using a respective device, in the plurality of devices, distinct from the first device, each rule in the plurality of rules comprises a corresponding conditional logic for a respective workforce status in an enumerated plurality of workforce statuses for a respective employee at the first entity, the corresponding conditional logic comprises one or more gating requirements, a corresponding task in a plurality of tasks is performed by a server system in accordance with each gating requirement in the one or more gating requirements of the corresponding conditional logic being satisfied, and the corresponding task in the plurality of tasks is not performed by the server system in accordance with each gating requirement in the one or more gating requirements of the corresponding conditional logic not being satisfied; receive a request for information for a first workforce status in the enumerated plurality of workforce statuses from a second device, in the plurality of devices, associated with a first employee of the first entity, the first workforce status associated with a second employee at the first entity; in response to the request for information, receive a workforce status feed from a third device in the plurality of devices, the third device associated with a second entity distinct from the first entity, the workforce status feed comprising a plurality of data elements associated with at least a subset of workforce statuses in the enumerated plurality of workforce statuses; apply some or all of the workforce status feed to a first set of rules, in the plurality of rules, associated with the first workforce status to receive a determination of working status of the first employee for the first workforce status; and in response to receiving the workforce status feed, generate a report comprising a notification of determination of working status of the first employee for the first workforce status, wherein the report is configured for displaying at a display of a respective device in the plurality of devices”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 17 recites the concept of managing workforce absentee and leave data which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Instructions to: store a plurality of rules for a first entity of a plurality of entities, wherein: each rule in the plurality of rules is defined, at least in part, by an administrator associated with the first entity, each rule in the plurality of rules comprises a corresponding conditional logic for a respective workforce status in an enumerated plurality of workforce statuses for a respective employee at the first entity, the corresponding conditional logic comprises one or more gating requirements, a corresponding task in a plurality of tasks is performed in accordance with each gating requirement in the one or more gating requirements of the corresponding conditional logic being satisfied, and the corresponding task in the plurality of tasks is not performed in accordance with each gating requirement in the one or more gating requirements of the corresponding conditional logic not being satisfied; receive a request for information for a first workforce status in the enumerated plurality of workforce statuses from a first employee of the first entity, the first workforce status associated with a second employee at the first entity; in response to the request for information, receive a workforce status feed from a second entity distinct from the first entity, the workforce status feed comprising a plurality of data elements associated with at least a subset of workforce statuses in the enumerated plurality of workforce statuses; apply some or all of the workforce status feed to a first set of rules, in the plurality of rules, associated with the first workforce status to receive a determination of working status of the first employee for the first workforce status; and in response to receiving the workforce status feed, generate a report comprising a notification of determination of working status of the first employee for the first workforce status, wherein the report is configured for displaying all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, a computing system, rules being in “electronic form”, a fist device, a respective device distinct from the first device, a plurality of devices, the server system, a second device, a third device, a display, and a respective device. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, a computing system, rules being in “electronic form”, a fist device, a respective device distinct from the first device, a plurality of devices, the server system, a second device, a third device, a display, and a respective device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also 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.
In claim 20, the limitation of “A computing system comprising: one or more processors; and memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs comprising one or more instructions for: storing a plurality of rules in electronic form for a first entity of a plurality of entities, the first entity associated with a first device in a plurality of devices”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computing system comprising: one or more processors; and memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs comprising one or more instructions”, “an electronic form”, and “a first device in a plurality of devices,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “wherein: each rule in the plurality of rules is defined, at least in part, by an administrator associated with the first entity using a respective device, in the plurality of devices, distinct from the first device, each rule in the plurality of rules comprises a corresponding conditional logic for a respective workforce status in an enumerated plurality of workforce statuses for a respective employee at the first entity, the corresponding conditional logic comprises one or more gating requirements, a corresponding task in a plurality of tasks is performed by the computing system in accordance with each gating requirement in the one or more gating requirements of the corresponding conditional logic being satisfied, and the corresponding task in the plurality of tasks is not performed by the computing system in accordance with each gating requirement in the one or more gating requirements of the corresponding conditional logic not being satisfied; receiving a request for information for a first workforce status in the enumerated plurality of workforce statuses from a second device, in the plurality of devices, associated with a first employee of the first entity, the first workforce status associated with a second employee at the first entity; in response to the request for information, receiving a workforce status feed from a third device in the plurality of devices, the third device associated with a second entity distinct from the first entity, the workforce status feed comprising a plurality of data elements associated with at least a subset of workforce statuses in the enumerated plurality of workforce statuses; applying some or all of the workforce status feed to a first set of rules, in the plurality of rules, associated with the first workforce status to receive a determination of working status of the first employee for the first workforce status; and in response to receiving the workforce status feed, generating a report comprising a notification of determination of working status of the first employee for the first workforce status, wherein the report is configured for displaying at a display of a respective device in the plurality of devices”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 20 recites the concept of managing workforce absentee and leave data which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Instructions for: storing a plurality of rules for a first entity of a plurality of entities, wherein: each rule in the plurality of rules is defined, at least in part, by an administrator associated with the first entity, each rule in the plurality of rules comprises a corresponding conditional logic for a respective workforce status in an enumerated plurality of workforce statuses for a respective employee at the first entity, the corresponding conditional logic comprises one or more gating requirements, a corresponding task in a plurality of tasks is performed in accordance with each gating requirement in the one or more gating requirements of the corresponding conditional logic being satisfied, and the corresponding task in the plurality of tasks is not performed in accordance with each gating requirement in the one or more gating requirements of the corresponding conditional logic not being satisfied; receiving a request for information for a first workforce status in the enumerated plurality of workforce statuses from a first employee of the first entity, the first workforce status associated with a second employee at the first entity; in response to the request for information, receiving a workforce status feed from a second entity distinct from the first entity, the workforce status feed comprising a plurality of data elements associated with at least a subset of workforce statuses in the enumerated plurality of workforce statuses; applying some or all of the workforce status feed to a first set of rules, in the plurality of rules, associated with the first workforce status to receive a determination of working status of the first employee for the first workforce status; and in response to receiving the workforce status feed, generating a report comprising a notification of determination of working status of the first employee for the first workforce status, wherein the report is configured for displaying all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computing system; one or more processors; memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs comprising one or more instructions; rules being in “electronic form”; a fist device; a plurality of devices; a respective device distinct from the first device; a second device; a third device; a display; and a respective device. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computing system; one or more processors; memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs comprising one or more instructions; rules being in “electronic form”; a fist device; a plurality of devices; a respective device distinct from the first device; a second device; a third device; a display; and a respective device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heyward et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2005/0060174, hereafter known as Heyward) in view of Avitabile et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0031184, hereafter known as Avitabile), Savage et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0110736, hereafter known as Savage), and Chu et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2010/0036671, hereafter known as Chu).
Regarding claim 1, Heyward teaches:
A method performed at a server system, the server system comprising one or more processors and memory storing one or more programs that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the server system to perform the method, the method comprising: (see Figs. 3 and 4A-4D and [0072]-[0080] for overall method. See Fig. 1A and 1B and [0052] "A central server 104 can be provided, which includes, or is in communication with one or more associated central databases 13oa" and [0056] "With continued reference to FIG. 1A, one skilled in the art will understand that the example LAN server 150 can be embodied as...central server 104 of the example network infrastructure 100" and [0058]-[0062] for the server comprising a processor and a memory comprising programs for implementing logical functions to run the absence management system)
storing a plurality of rules in electronic form for a first entity of a plurality of entities, the first entity associated with a first device in a plurality of devices (see [0086] "The prompting of a decision tree web page can occur during administration or tracking. Options available include receiving a new request or closing the employee's leave by selecting an appropriate return-to-work option and navigating the corresponding decision tree...Resolution options such as referral to other departments, letters to the employee, and directed e-mails requesting input from relevant officials are presented...the case resolution options correspond to the employer's leave and attendance policies and procedures" and [0088] "Once the triggering event occurs, statutory mandates and/or employer policies/procedures are considered and used in the decision processing. Statutory mandates include state and federal family leave, ADA, Worker's Compensation, ERISA, OSHA, and HIPAA (a federal statute that addresses the confidentiality of medical data and information. The employer policies/procedures include STD/LTD programs, sick leave, maternity leave, other paid leave, and LWOP (leave without pay)". Also see [0145] and [0060] for storing employer policies for handling leave/vacation of employees electronically in the memory. See workstations 116a-c and [0047] "An absence management system enables performance of the aforementioned functions through the provision of a plurality of web-interfaces (e.g., web-pages, screens, etc.), herein referred to as web-pages. The web-pages are preferably provided through the use of a web browser...Access to an absence management system may also be available to employees for some functions, such as entering a leave request as described below" for employee work stations being devices associated with the first entity/employer)
wherein: each rule in the plurality of rules is defined, at least in part, by an administrator associated with the first entity (see [0086] "The prompting of a decision tree web page can occur during administration or tracking. Options available include receiving a new request or closing the employee's leave by selecting an appropriate return-to-work option and navigating the corresponding decision tree...Resolution options such as referral to other departments, letters to the employee, and directed e-mails requesting input from relevant officials are presented...the case resolution options correspond to the employer's leave and attendance policies and procedures" and [0088] "Once the triggering event occurs, statutory mandates and/or employer policies/procedures are considered and used in the decision processing. Statutory mandates include state and federal family leave, ADA, Worker's Compensation, ERISA, OSHA, and HIPAA (a federal statute that addresses the confidentiality of medical data and information. The employer policies/procedures include STD/LTD programs, sick leave, maternity leave, other paid leave, and LWOP (leave without pay)" for the rules governing leave being defined in part by the employer. See [0099] for HR department of employer being referred cases to determine appropriateness)
each rule in the plurality of rules comprises a corresponding conditional logic for a respective workforce status in an enumerated plurality of workforce statuses for a respective employee at the first entity (see [0049] "An absence management system also comprises functionality for decision processing (herein also referred to as decision tree processing, or similar terminology). Decision processing enables an administrator to process leave and/or return-to-work issues in a manner that meets federal and state regulations for such absence issues" for the rules forming decision trees. See Figs. 9-19 and [0089] "FIGS. 9-19 are flow diagrams that illustrate various decision tree methods employed by the absence management system 152 corresponding to the aforementioned triggering events. In particular, the decision trees preferably include the following: serious health condition (e.g., loaded upon confirmation of medical necessity), job restructuring/reassignment, job restoration, fitness for duty, termination/discipline, ADA accommodation, and conflict with Worker's Compensation, ADA, STD, or state regulations" for a conditional logic decision trees for an enumerated plurality of workforce statuses. Also see [0086] for return-to-work decision tree. See for example the conditional logic of [0095] and Fig. 11 B of determining whether the leave request satisfies rules for a “serious Health Condition” requirement as part of the determination process to determine whether to designate or not designate as FMLA)
the corresponding conditional logic comprises one or more gating requirements (see, for example, Fig. 11B and [0095] “Block 1118 includes querying whether the leave request satisfies a serious health condition (SHC) requirement. Some exemplary SHC requirements include in-patient care, continuing treatment under the care or direction of a health care provider, and periods of incapacity of more than three days including treatment” and [0096] “If the leave request satisfies the SHC requirement (block 1118), then an additional query is made to determine whether the leave request is for the SHC of the employee (block 1126). If so, the leave request is designated as FMLA (block 1134)” for the gating requirement of determining whether the leave request satisfies the serious health condition threshold and whether the leave request is for the serious health condition of the employee. If both are true, then the leave is designated as FMLA. Also see other gating requirements in 11B for FMLA designation being output when the serious health condition is for a child 18 years or younger or for a child over 18 but who is disabled for addition gating requirements)
a corresponding task in a plurality of tasks is performed by the server system in accordance with each gating requirement in the one or more gating requirements of the corresponding conditional logic being satisfied (see Fig. 11A and [0094] "Proceeding from start block 1102, a query is made to determine whether the employee is an applicant for worker's compensation or short-term disability/extended leave (block 1104)...For an affirmative response to block 1104, a query is made in block 1108 to determine if the employee has been approved for worker's compensation or short-term disability/extended leave benefits...If the application is approved, block 1112 includes documenting receipt of benefits and modifying the leave request form for that employee (e.g., as prompted by the absence management system 152 (FIG. 1B)). In some embodiments, the documenting may occur automatically if a payroll system was providing such information" for a corresponding task being to document the receipt of benefits and modifying the leave request as being FMLA if the conditional logic being that the employee has been approved for worker's comp/extended leave. Also see the task of designating leave as FMLA if the gating requirements discussed above in 11B and [0095]-[0096] are satisfied. See Fig. 9 steps 908, 910, and 912 and [0092] for the corresponding task of documenting ADA assessment necessary if a medical condition has been identified as a reason for termination as another example of corresponding tasks throughout Figs. 9-19 and [0089]-[0105])
and the corresponding task in the plurality of tasks is not performed by the server system in accordance with each gating requirement in the one or more gating requirements of the corresponding conditional logic not being satisfied (see Fig. 11A and [0094] "a query is made in block 1108 to determine if the employee has been approved for worker's compensation or short-term disability/extended leave benefits. If approved, processing continues at block 1112 explained below. If not approved, block 1110 includes consulting with appropriate officials to determine whether the application is approved. The absence management method 152f prompts the administrator to seek information from an appropriate official as he or she steps through the decision tree. The administrator can then send a directed e-mail to the appropriate official. If the application is not approved, processing proceeds to block A" for not documenting the receipt of benefits and not designating the leave request as FMLA if the employee has not been approved for worker's comp/short-term disability. Also see the not performing the task of designating leave as FMLA in Fig. 11B when the gating requirements discussed above are not satisfied. See Fig. 9 steps 908, 910, and 912 and [0092] for the corresponding task of documenting ADA assessment not being performed if a medical condition has not been identified as a reason for termination as another example of corresponding tasks not being performed if their logic has not been met throughout Figs. 9-19 and [0089]-[0105])
receiving a request for information for a first workforce status in the enumerated plurality of workforce statuses from a second device, in the plurality of devices, associated with a first employee of the first entity, the first workforce status associated with a second employee at the first entity (see Fig. 26 and [0136] "FIG. 26 is a screen diagram of an example leave requests summary report page 2600 responsive to selecting the reports icon 2601 from the main menu 2101. The leave requests summary report page 2600, in one embodiment, is a columnar report that lists each leave request and period in an operator designated date span. All leave requests which are open within the date span are preferably included" and [0138] "The search criteria section 2602 enables the leave manager to set the beginning 2631 and ending 2632 report dates and department 2633, for example to produce quarterly reports" for a leave manager requesting reports on leave status of employees of a company from a user interface. See workstation 116 and [0106]-[0107] for the leave manager using a second device. See selector 2604 for the specification of "disputed" status)
in response to the request for information, receiving a workforce status feed from a third device in the plurality of devices, the third device associated with a second entity distinct from the first entity, the workforce status feed comprising a plurality of data elements associated with at least a subset of workforce statuses in the enumerated plurality of workforce statuses (see [0138] "The search criteria section 2602 enables the leave manager to set the beginning 2631 and ending 2632 report dates and department 2633, for example to produce quarterly reports. Responsive to selecting the view button icon 2606, the leave request summary report page 2600 is presented in the format as shown". See [0106] "FIGS. 20-28E illustrate several exemplary screen diagrams that can be generated by the absence management system 152 (FIG. 1B) to enable an administrator to process and track leave requests" for the workforce status feed being provided from the absence management system. See absence management system vendor in [0067] and [0054] "the absence management system 152 can be maintained at the central server 104, and thus accessed by the LAN server 150 using browser software as described above" for the workforce status feed coming from a central server associated with vendor, distinct from the employer)
and in response to receiving the workforce status feed, generating a report comprising a notification of (see Fig. 26 and [0138] "The search criteria section 2602 enables the leave manager to set the beginning 2631 and ending 2632 report dates and department 2633, for example to produce quarterly reports. Responsive to selecting the view button icon 2606, the leave request summary report page 2600 is presented in the format as shown" and [0136] "Checking the disputed checkbox 2604 enables the generation of a disputed leave report (not shown), which would appear almost identical to the leave requests summary report page 2600 but preferably presented with only leaves that are disputed" for generating a report in response to the workforce status feed with categories of workforce statuses displayed on a leave manager's device)
While Heyward teaches the employer and governments defining leave policies and HR employees determining case appropriateness as discussed above and further teaches administrators in [0047]-[0049], Heyward does not explicitly teach administrators defining rules using a respective device distinct from the first device. Heyward also teaches the generation of leave reports as discussed above. However, Heyward does not explicitly teach the application of a workforce status feed to a first set of rules to receive a determination of the working status of the user requesting the report and the report comprising a notification of the working status of the requesting user. Avitabile teaches:
each rule in the plurality of rules is defined, at least in part, by an administrator associated with the first entity using a respective device, in the plurality of devices, distinct from the first device (see [0038] “Configuration module 340 may solicit, receive, and store calendar configuration data from authorized users (e.g., configuration administrator 110). For example, configuration module 340 may selectively provide (e.g., based on login account settings) links to configuration options for the out-of-office calendar. Configuration options may include, for example, holiday settings for particular countries/regions” for administrators configuring a leave management system by entering rules and Fig. 1 and [0017] “One of user devices 105 may be associated with each of configuration administrator 110, manager 120, and staff member 130. Configuration administrator 110, manager 120, and staff member 130 may generically be referred to herein as "users" or "employees"” for the administrator using a device that is distinct from other employee devices. In combination with Heyward, the administrators would configure the system by entering rules using their respective devices)
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of an administrator configuring the rules of the absence management system from a distinct device of Avitabile for the employer and administrator configuring the system of Heyward.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
The combination of Heyward and Avitabile still does not explicitly teach the application of a workforce status feed to a first set of rules to receive a determination of the working status of the user requesting the report and the report comprising a notification of the working status of the requesting user. Savage teaches:
(see [0125] “Comprehensive leave management system server 1550 permits client devices operated by individual employers and officers and other representatives of the businesses, and employees of the businesses, to…obtain reports relating to employee leave” for employees being able to obtain reports relating to employee leave and [0073] “Reports may include data as to individual claims, individual employees, summary or complete data regarding employers, worksites, classes of employees of employers, claims suitable for subrogation, and other classifications of data” and [0051] “The system may be configured to store data relating to multiple types of leave and to access the stored data to create reports and analyses of the data relating to multiple types of leave, including accessing stored data relating to one employer and providing reports and analyses of the data relating to the one employer” for the reporting on a type of leave across an employer, which includes a requesting employee (an employer super user of [0140]) as well as other employees)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the working status reporting across an employer of Savage with the workforce status reporting of the combination of Heyward and Avitabile. As Savage states in [0005] “The task of managing and tracking different types of employee absences, including various types of employee leave, is a complex task for employers”. By generating a report of a workforce status across an employer, an employer super user (Savage [0140]) can more easily keep track of the various types of leave taken by employees across a company. One or ordinary skill in the art that a Savage employer super user would be a user of Heyward with administrator access (see [0048] for Heyward administrator authority to view employee information and [0109] for administrators having organization unit access to information). Therefore, by incorporating the organization-wide reporting of savage into the reporting system of Heyward and Avitabile, the resulting combination expands absence tracking from an immediate supervisor level to an organization-level.
While Heyward teaches the generation of reports, the reports of Heyward are filtering the workforce status feed to include the type of leave of interest in the report (see the “Limit report to” search fields in Fig. 26). Accordingly, the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, and Savage does not explicitly teach applying a set of rules associated with the first workforce status to determine the workforce statuses of the first and second employees. Chu teaches:
applying some or all of the workforce status feed to a first set of rules, in the plurality of rules, associated with the first workforce status to receive a determination of working status of the first employee for the first workforce status (see Fig. 3 report and [0054] “FMLA eligibility 360 is provided in real time. Whether or not the employee meets the eligibility of one year's accumulative employment 365 is displayed. The display can be, for example, in green when an employee meets the requirement in contrast to a red field if the employee has not yet attained one year of accumulative service. Any ready indication can be used. Similarly, whether or not the employee meets the eligibility of 1250 hours worked within the last rolling 12 months 370 is displayed. As suggested above, the display can be, for example, in green when an employee meets the requirement in contrast to a red field if the employee has not yet worked 1250 hours in the last rolling 12 months. The number of hours worked in the last rolling 12 months is also displayed in a separate field 372” and [0055] “Yet another field, provides an indication of the employee's exhaustion and perhaps negative balance of FMLA leave, as the company permits 388” and [0056] “Current medical authorizations on file for FMLA leave can be displayed along with a history of FMLA leave requests 390 (FIG. 3)” for a report providing eligibility for FMLA by applying FMLA rules in real-time along with a report showing FMLA request history. In combination with the reporting of Heyward, Avitabile, and Savage, the FMLA rule application would be performed in real time when presenting the report)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of applying leave eligibility rules in real-time when reporting on employees’ workforce status of Chu to the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, and Savage would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Chu to the teaching of the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, and Savage would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such applying leave eligibility rules in real-time when reporting on employees’ workforce status. Further, applying leave eligibility rules in real-time when reporting on employees’ workforce status to the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, and Savage would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more accurate and up-to-date employee reporting. One of ordinary skill in the art viewing Heyward (Fig. 6, [0082], [0115], etc.) would recognize that leave types can change based on events of the employee. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by applying eligibility rules in real time when generating reports, the reports generated would captured any potential changes of an employee’s working status. The resulting reports would therefore be more accurate and up-to-date than the reporting in Heyward alone.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Heyward further teaches:
wherein the enumerated plurality of workforce statuses comprises one or more of: one or more administrative statuses, one or more benefit statuses, one or more stock purchase plan statuses, one or more digital security statuses, one or more physical security statuses, one or more facility statuses, one or more performance review statuses, one or more absentee statuses, one or more payroll statuses, and one or more invoice statuses (see [0094] "a query is made in block 1108 to determine if the employee has been approved for worker's compensation or short-term disability/extended leave benefits...If the application is approved, block 1112 includes documenting receipt of benefits and modifying the leave request form for that employee" and [0114] "The leave category section 2108 provides selectable options to enable the administrator to request a designation of the manner in which the employee will receive pay or benefits during the leave period. These options include sick leave 2140, personal 2141, vacation 2142, extended sick leave 2143, unpaid leave 2144, and other 2145" for the workforce statuses including at least multiple absentee statuses, benefits statuses, and payroll statuses)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Heyward further teaches:
wherein the plurality of tasks comprises an information collection task, a claim task, a collation task, a reconcile task, a push task, a pull task, a storage task, a verification task, or a combination thereof (see [0077] "As used herein, the documentation of actions are "recorded" in an employee's leave history" and [0094] "If the application is approved, block 1112 includes documenting receipt of benefits and modifying the leave request form for that employee (e.g., as prompted by the absence management system 152 (FIG. 1B)). In some embodiments, the documenting may occur automatically if a payroll system was providing such information"" for the plurality of tasks comprising a storage task of recording benefits into a user's history)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Heyward further teaches:
wherein a first rule in the plurality of rules defines eligibility for a change in the first workforce status (see Fig. 6 and [0082] "FIG. 6 is a flow diagram that further illustrates processing for block 508 of FIG. 5 by the absence management method 152b, which corresponds to the processing for a request for extension or change in leave type" and [0083] "If the employee's extension is not approved (block 620), block 622 includes determining if re-certification is necessary...If re-certification is necessary (block 622), block 626 includes executing a certification process. Execution of the certification process may be activated by an administrator based upon the circumstances, or in some embodiments, the absence management method 152b may automatically generate a re-certification prompt for some or all leave extension requests. Once the re-certification process is activated, the absence management method 152b automatically generates the necessary letter and documents. Block 628 includes determining if the extension is confirmed as a FMLA qualifying event" for a first rule being the recertification and checking of a qualifying event for an FMLA extension)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 above. Heyward further teaches:
wherein a second rule in the plurality of rules defines a requirement for the eligibility in the first workforce status (see [0073] "Additional information of interest to FMLA determinations includes whether the employee has used twelve weeks of leave in a 1-year period. The determination of a 1-year period may be based on several accounting methods, such as a "rolling-backwards method," among others. Additionally, FMLA leave determinations include whether the employee has 12 weeks (based on the employee workweek schedule) remaining in his or her leave entitlement")
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 above. Heyward further teaches:
wherein: the first workforce status is a performance status, a maternity leave status, a short-term disability status, a longer-term disability status, a sick leave status, a fostering or adopting status, an employer program status, a surrogacy status, a parental status, a pre-natal leave status, a newborn baby bonding leave status, a caregiver leave status, a military service leave status, a paid time off (PTO) leave status, a vacation status, or a combination thereof (see [0073] "The calculations and determinations of the absence management method 152a are based on an implementation complying with federal statutory rules for FMLA. Thus, qualifying reasons will also enter into the determinations, such as the employee's own sickness, family member sickness, child adoption, among others. The absence management method 152a also addresses whether short-term disability or worker's compensation is being provided to the employee. For example, under federal statutes, an employee can run disability programs concurrently with FMLA" for the first workforce status being at least sick leave, caregiver, disability, or an adoption status. See [0075] for childbirth/maternity leave. [0088] for short and long term disability. [0113] for vacation, military leave)
and the eligibility of the first workforce status is at least a total number of days entitled to be absent from work within a period of time (see [0073] "Additional information of interest to FMLA determinations includes whether the employee has used twelve weeks of leave in a 1-year period. The determination of a 1-year period may be based on several accounting methods, such as a "rolling-backwards method," among others. Additionally, FMLA leave determinations include whether the employee has 12 weeks (based on the employee workweek schedule) remaining in his or her leave entitlement")
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 above. While Heyward teaches displaying the summary report of Fig. 26 being filtered by date range and entries shown with corresponding start and end dates, Heyward does not explicitly teach a calendarization of the period of time being searched for in the report. However, Avitabile further teaches:
wherein the report comprises a calendarization of the period of time (see Fig. 4 and [0048] “As shown in FIG. 4, presentation section 440 may include a calendar template with data corresponding to a selected link in data selection menu 410. Thus, a user's selection of the "Consolidated Calendar" option from data selection 410 may cause calendar server 150 (e.g., calendar generator 310) to present calendar 445 that includes a summary of out-of-office data for the highest organizational level included in data selection menu 410” and Fig. 5 with employee names on the calendar for calendarizing the consolidated report data regarding employee absences)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of displaying a calendarization of employee leave statuses over a specified period of time of Avitabile to Heyward would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Avitabile to the teaching of Heyward would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such a calendarization of employee leave statuses over a specified period of time. Further, applying a calendarization of employee leave statuses over a specified period of time to Heyward would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient reviewing of upcoming scheduled leave. By being displayed in a calendar format, the administrator can more easily recognize overlapping leaves among employees, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize is beneficial for workforce planning during the specified time. Instead of sorting through the listed leaves of Heyward alone and remembering which dates overlap and which do not, the calendar format of Avitabile more clearly shows which leaves do and do not overlap.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 above. Heyward further teaches:
wherein the report comprises a name of the second employee, an address associated with the second employee, a date of birth of the second employee, a group number associated with the second employee, a plan classification associated with the second employee, a policy, an event type, an event date, a respective workforce status, an approval status, a document associated with the second employee, an application identifier associated with the second employee, a period of time associated with the second employee, an application date associated with the second employee, a queue number, a last update date, or a combination thereof (see Fig. 26 and [0137] "The leave request summary report page 2600 further includes a report section 2610, which includes an employee information section 2612, a leave period section 2614, a leave request section 2616, and a FMLA information section 2618. The report section 2610 preferably lists one line per request that falls within the date of ranges determined in the search criteria section 2602. The leave period section 2614 includes columns for start date 2620, end date 2621, and category 2622 for the leave requested. The leave request section 2616 includes columnar sections for the reason for the leave 2623, the type of leave (continuous, intermittent, reduced) 2624, and whether FMLA is designated (yes, no, pending) 2625. The FMLA information section 2618 includes columns for the hours used 2626 for the requested leave, and the end date for the requested leave 2627. Also included in the leave request summary report page 2600 is a FMLA summary section 2630, which provides a tally of the reasons for the leave")
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Heyward further teaches:
wherein the workforce status feed comprises a plurality of employee records, each respective employee record in the plurality of employee records associated with a corresponding employee in a plurality of employees for the first entity (see Fig. 2 and [0067] "FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example import file 200 that may be used, in whole or in part, in the absence management system 152 (FIG. 1B)" and [0109] "Pertinent information regarding the employee, such as department association 2122 and job category 2123, will be pre-populated from the employer data feed (e.g., import data file 200, FIG. 2)" for the workforce data feed comprising the import data file. See [0067] "The data import file 200 may include one record per employee, with the fields listed as shown" for the import file comprising a plurality of employee records, with each record corresponding to one employee)
wherein each respective record in the plurality of employee records includes (i) a name of the corresponding employee and (ii) a name of a least one other employee in the plurality of employees to which the corresponding employee shares a reporting relationship (see Fig. 2 and [0069] "The employee demographic information section, as indicated by line 217, includes an ID field line 219, LastName field line 221, FirstName field line 223, title field 225, street1 field 227, street2 field 229, city field 231, state field 233, post field 235, and phone field 237...The LastName field 221 is a required field (Y), and is an alphanumeric format. The FirstName field 223 is a required field, and is an alphanumeric format, and may include the middle initial" and [0109] "The administrator may optionally be set up with department and/or organization unit access. The first time an administrator, such as a supervisor, submits a leave request for an employee, the supervisor enters his or her name in the leave request form 2100a. Thereafter, the absence management system 152 (FIG. 1B) pre-fills his or her name" for the name of a supervisor being pre-filled by the employee record)
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Heyward further teaches:
wherein the request for information is received from a federal government entity, a state government entity, a county government entity, a municipal government entity, or the first entity (see [0138] “The search criteria section 2602 enables the leave manager to set the beginning 2631 and ending 2632 report dates and department 2633, for example to produce quarterly reports” and [0047] “Such interfaces can be provided to an administrator such as a payroll person operating under SAP, employee supervisors, leave managers, and/or system administrators. Although the web-pages may appear slightly different to an individual having one of the listed job titles (e.g., a web-page presented to a supervisor may have fewer functions than a similar functional page presented to a system administrator), the web-pages described herein will be addressed to an administrator with an understanding of similar page formats, functionality, and applicability to individuals with other job titles” for a supervisor/ leave manager of the employer (the “first entity” of Heyward) submitting the request for a leave report)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Heyward further teaches:
wherein receiving the request for information further comprises authenticating the request for information in accordance with a login operation protocol (see Fig. 20 and [0107] "FIG. 20 is a screen diagram of an example login page 2000 used by an administrator (e.g., supervisor or leave administrator) working in cooperation with the absence management system 152 (FIG. 1B)" and [0108] "The login page 2000 includes a title 2002, an instruction line 2004, an ID window 2006, a password window 2008, a next button icon 2010, and an off button icon 2012. The login page 2000 is preferably used by an administrator to enter a unique ID and password. An initial ID and password can be assigned by a system administrator (e.g., in an IT department). If an administrator forgets his or her password, a system administrator can assign a new one. As shown, the instruction line 2004 provides an administrator with guidance as to what he or she is to do with the login page 2000. An administrator can provide text entry to the ID window 2006 and text entry to the password window 2008. After entering the information, an administrator can select the next button icon 2010 to proceed" for an administrator logging on to the system before being able to make a report request)
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Heyward further teaches:
wherein the plurality of rules comprises at least 50 rules, at least 100 rules, or at least 1,000 rules (see Figs. 3-19 for diamonds indicating rules/decision points. Throughout the Figures and corresponding paragraphs, 61 rules/decision points are made, which is greater than 50 and reads on the claim. However, Examiner also notes that the criticality of the recited ranges (50+, 100+, and 1,000+ rules) has not been demonstrated. Accordingly, a prior art range of fewer than 50 rules would also read on the present claim. In order to support the criticality of the number of rules, Applicant can show support from the specification indicating unexpected results achieved relative to the prior art by using the recited ranges of the number of rules. See MPEP 2144.05 III.A.)
Regarding claim 17, Heyward teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to (see [0065] "When the absence management system 152 is implemented in software, as is shown in FIG. 1B, the absence management system 152 can be stored on any computer readable medium for use by or in connection with any computer related system or method. In the context of this document, a computer readable medium is an electronic, magnetic, optical, or other physical device or means that can contain or store a computer program for use by or in connection with a computer related system or method")
Regarding the remaining limitations of claim 17, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 20, Heyward teaches:
A computing system comprising: one or more processors (see Figs. 1A and 1B and [0056] "With continued reference to FIG. 1A, one skilled in the art will understand that the example LAN server 150 can be embodied as one or more of the workstations 116a-c and/or central server 104 of the example network infrastructure 100" and [0057] "the LAN server 150 includes a processor 160, memory 158, and one or more input and/or output (I/O) devices 170 (or peripherals) that are communicatively coupled via a local interface 180" and [0058] "The processor 160 is a hardware device capable of executing software, particularly that stored in memory 158")
and memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs comprising one or more instructions for (see [0059]-[0060] "Memory 158 can include any one or combination of volatile memory elements (e.g., random access memory (RAM, such as DRAM, SRAM, SDRAM, etc.)) and non-volatile memory elements (e.g., ROM, hard drive, tape, CDROM, etc.)...the software in the memory 158 includes the absence management system 152 and a suitable operating system (O/S) 156")
Regarding the remaining limitations of claim 20, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heyward in view of Avitabile, Savage, Chu, and Suryanarayana et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0368214, hereafter known as Suryanarayana).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. While Heyward teaches a plurality of rules defining how leave requests are to be handled and designated throughout the system based on conditions being met or not met, the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu does not explicitly teach the corresponding conditional logic comprising Boolean logic. Suryanarayana teaches:
wherein the corresponding conditional logic comprises Boolean logic (see [0166] "the computer system can determine compliance with the one or more compliance rules parameterized for the first jurisdiction object with respect to the employee object, based on the employee information and the one or more compliance parameters. For example, the computing system may perform a Boolean operation with respect to the compliance rules parameterized for the first jurisdiction object with respect to the employee object to determine whether the employee and/or organization is in compliance with the particular compliance rule for that particular jurisdiction". Also see [0050] and [0051])
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of Boolean logic to determine compliance with rules of Suryanarayana for the generic conditional logic of the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu to determine how leave requests are to be designated and handled of Heyward.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heyward in view of Avitabile, Savage, Chu, and Havaldar et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0327199, hereafter known as Havaldar).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Heyward teaches an “employer” being a first entity, but the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu does not explicitly teach that the employer is one of the government entities or insurance entity listed in claim 10. However, Havaldar teaches:
wherein the first entity is a federal government entity, a state government entity, a county government entity, a municipal government entity, or an insurance entity (see [0035] "Organization 106 may be, for example, a corporation, a partnership, a charitable organization, a city, a government agency, or some other suitable type of organization. As depicted, organization 106 includes employees 108". Also see [0088] and Figs. 7-16 for an employee of the organization requesting a leave. In combination with Heyward, the employer is a city government entity)
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of a city government employer of Havaldar for the generic employer of the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heyward in view of Avitabile, Savage, Chu, and Inaba et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0178077, hereafter known as Inaba).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Heyward further teaches that each employee record has a supervisor code listed (element 241), and that supervisor’s names are remembered by the system and pre-filled in future requests in [0109]. However, the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu does not explicitly teach the generation of an organizational tree of the first entity based on the workforce status feed, with nodes each representing an employee of a plurality of nodes making up the tree. However, Inaba teaches:
further comprising generating an organizational tree of the first entity based on the workforce status feed, the organizational tree comprising a plurality of nodes, wherein each respective node in the plurality of nodes corresponds to an employee in a plurality of employees (see [0067] "The external information acquisition section 103 is realized mainly by the processes performed by the CPU 11 or the NIC 15 of FIG. 2, and acquires external information such as, for example, the information for investors and the personnel information transmitted from a transmission section 301 of the information providing apparatus 300" and [0078] "the organization information comparison section 122 forms an organization chart of FIG. 11 based on the information received from the external information acquisition section 103" for generating an organizational tree based on workforce data feed, with each employee being a node of a plurality of nodes on the org chart of Fig. 11)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the generation of an organizational tree based on employee workforce status data as taught by Inaba in the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, the use of the employee record feed with department and supervisor information for each employee of the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being usable to generate such an organizational tree as in Inaba. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that generating such an organizational tree would have had predictable results and not interfered in the submitting of leave requests and generation of leave reports described in Heyward.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heyward in view of Avitabile, Savage, Chu, and Cooper et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2010/0100561, hereafter known as Cooper).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Heyward teaches the request for information comprising date ranges for the report and the department of employees in Fig. 26. Heyward also teaches that the employee records comprise an employee’s full name and a unique ID number for each employee. However, the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu does not explicitly teach that the request for information comprises personally identifiable information of the first employee. Cooper teaches:
wherein the request for information comprises personal identifiable information for the first employee (see Fig. 43a and [0291] "The administrator may search by name, social security number, employee ID, status, benefit, event, start dates, end dates, date range, and the like. Similarly, selecting the employee search option may bring the administrator to an employee search screen. The administrator may search by name, social security number, employee ID, and the like". In combination with Heyward, the report search of Heyward includes name and social security number search options for the administrator as well as event date ranges)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using personally identifiable information in information requests regarding a first employee of Cooper to the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Cooper to the teaching of the combination of Heyward, Avitabile, Savage, and Chu would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such using personally identifiable information in information requests regarding a first employee. Further, applying using personally identifiable information in information requests regarding a first employee to Heyward would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient leave report generations for particular employees. By incorporating search features based on personally identifiable information of an employee into the report request recited in Heyward, a user/administrator/supervisor of the combined system would have the ability to isolate one employee and review their leave without having extraneous leave information of other employees in the employee’s department also shown in the report.
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 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Steffeney et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0262813) teaches a system to inform employees about leave benefits and ensure compliance with laws and regulations
Klebanoff et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2008/0195512) teaches determining a leave policy for identified absences in an identified time period
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MORONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/M.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights