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 . Claims 1-8 are pending and have been examined on the merits set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claims perform non-abstract, technical data transformations of real-world information. Examiner disagrees. As described in the specification, paragraph [0006, 0007] describe the difficulty in determining what motivates a person and determining job suitability based on motivating factors and achievements. The aim of the claimed invention is not a technical improvement. The observations and evaluations that are claimed a mental processes that can be performed by human with or without pen and paper. Further, this type of analysis is certain methods of organizing human activity. Any computer implementation amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract ideas.
With respect to applicant’s argument that the claims produce concrete operational benefits thereby improving the functioning of the training system, reducing human intervention, examiner asserts that the claims set forth limitations wherein motivation factors are analyzed and recommendations are generated based on the analysis. Data analysis and recommendation generation, as claimed, are abstract ideas. This might improve the decision making process of the training, but there does not appear to be any improvement to any computer or technology, as required under the evaluation for practical application.
Applicant’s third argument alleges the claims are not generic computer operations but specific data-processing steps applied to real-world inputs, producing a real-world outcome… supplies an inventive concept that transforms abstract information into a machine-implemented, useful result. It is noted that “eligibility should not be evaluated based on whether the claim recites a "useful, concrete, and tangible result," State Street Bank, 149 F.3d 1368, 1374, 47 USPQ2d 1596, 1602 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1544, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1994)), as this test has been superseded. In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 959-60, 88 USPQ2d 1385, 1394-95 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff'd by Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea"). The programmed computer or "special purpose computer" test of In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 31 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (i.e., the rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim for the "special purpose" of executing the algorithm or software) was also superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions. Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[W]e note that Alappat has been superseded by Bilski, 561 U.S. at 605–06, and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)"); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer")” MPEP 2106 I.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-8 is/are directed to a method, system, and computer program product. Thus, all the claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the Examiner notes that the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
More specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
an organization unit, cset of a job, a person, and a date and time on a basis of second information indicating a challenge content for each set of a job, a person, and a date and time; and
a first determination unit,
Independent claim 8 is the non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program wherein execution causes a computer to function as claimed in claim 1.
Independent claim 7 recites determining at least one first motivation factor to be stimulated by a job on a basis of first information for identifying the job; and determining at least one second motivation factor to be stimulated by a job for each person and each date and time on a basis of second information set for each person and each date and time regarding an achievement of the job.
The independent claims recite data analysis steps to determine if motivation factors are stimulated. The concept of data analysis is a fundamental business practice long prevalent in our system of commerce which is certain methods of organizing human activity. The use of data analysis is also a building block of ingenuity in corporate planning. Thus, data analysis, like hedging, is an "abstract idea" beyond the scope of §101. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. at 2356. In addition, claims recite mental processes including observations and evaluations to determine if motivation factors are stimulated.
The nominal recitation of one or more processors and execution of a program stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 2 recites steps to determine whether achievement has exceeded a threshold, and diagnose a third motivation factor which is mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity as described above in claim 1. The one or more processors amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites extract a first person and second person diagnosed to have a same third motivation and present a task contrivance of one of a first and a second person who has achieved a higher achievement which is mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity as described above in claim 1. The one or more processors amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites steps to recommend a third person transfer to a job that is likely to stimulate the third motivation factor which is mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity as described above in claim 1. The one or more processors amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites steps to ultimately combine a job that is likely to stimulate a fifth motivation in a case where the fourth and fifth motivation factor do not coincide with each other mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity as described above in claim 1. The one or more processors amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 6 ultimately recites steps to propose changing the extracted job to a job that is likely to stimulate the fifth motivation factor in a case where the fourth and fifth motivation factor do not coincide with each other mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity as described above in claim 1. The one or more processors amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually and in combination, the system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, 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, and when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights