DETAILED ACTION
The following is a FINAL office action upon examination of the application number 18/819410.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/20/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 22, 23, 26-28, 31, 35, and 38-41 have been amended.
Claims 22-41 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
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 22-41 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.
(Step 1) Claims 22-38 are directed to a system comprising one or more processors; thus the system comprises a device or set of devices, and therefore, is directed to a machine which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 39 and 40 are directed to a method; thus these claims are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. Claim 41 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is a manufacture, and this a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A) The claims recite an abstract idea instructing how to convert a legacy schema to generate an external payroll policy, which is described by claim limitations reciting:
execute a conversion … on a processing flow of a legacy schema of a first payroll system;
identify, responsive to the execution of the conversion …, a plurality of inputs;
identify, based on the plurality of inputs, a set of functions based on the processing flow of the legacy schema;
generate, … based on the legacy schema, an external payroll policy;
generate, based on the set of functions and a natural language description for the plurality of inputs, a configuration table mapping an operation of the legacy schema with a specification of the external payroll policy in a selected format type that is natively compatible with a second payroll system; and
provide, using the configuration table and the external payroll policy, a structured data object implementing the external payroll policy in accordance with the selected format type for execution ….
The identified limitations in the claims describing converting a legacy schema to generate an external payroll policy, (i.e., the abstract idea) fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, which covers fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions. Dependent claims 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 38, recite limitations that further narrow/describe the abstract idea; therefore, these claims are also found to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because additional elements such as the one or more processors, coupled with memory; conversion framework; schema converter of the conversion framework; first payroll system; and second payroll system in claim 22; the one or more processors coupled with memory; one or more processors coupled with memory; conversion framework; schema converter of the conversion framework; first payroll system; and second payroll system in claim 39; and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions; conversion framework; schema converter of the conversion framework; first payroll system; and second payroll system in claim 41, do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea since these elements are only broadly applied to the abstract ideas at a high level of generality; thus, none of recited hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, in this case, implementation via a processor/computer.
Additional elements in claims 26, 29, 36, 37, 40, and 41, related to one or more calls of a sequence of calls… and sequence of calls… do not yield an improvement to the computer or technology; further, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. Accordingly, these additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the hardware additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additional elements in claims 26, 29, 36, 37, 40, and 41, related to one or more calls of a sequence of calls… and sequence of calls… do not yield an improvement and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite subject matter that falls within the groupings of abstract ideas.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains that the identified limitations in the claims describing converting a legacy schema to generate an external payroll policy, (i.e., the abstract idea) fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, which covers fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions. The courts have used the phrases "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. The term "fundamental" is not used in the sense of necessarily being "old" or "well-known." See, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1092 (Fed Cir. 2015) (a new method of price optimization was found to be a fundamental economic concept); In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (describing a new set of rules for conducting a wagering game as a "fundamental economic practice"); In re Greenstein, 774 Fed. Appx. 661, 664, 2019 USPQ2d 212400 (Fed Cir. 2019) (non-precedential) (claims to a new method of allocating returns to different investors in an investment fund was a fundamental economic concept). Thus, Examiner finds that the recited abstract idea related to payroll schemas falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not provide an improvement to the technology or to the performance of the computer. In FairWarning, the court found that accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Similarly, the use of a processor to perform a schema conversion for large datasets does not improve the technology or performance of the computer.
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. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
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 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"). Additionally, specifying that a selected format type is natively compatible to a second payroll system does not improve the technology or the computer; this limitations only further narrows the abstract idea.
Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that the present claims are similar to Example 42. Claim 1, in example 42 recites a combination of additional elements including storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users. In contrast, additional elements in the present claims only amount to generic hardware components that are recited at a high level of generality and only add computer implementation of the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements in Example 42 recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. While the present claims generally describe converting a payroll schema into a second format, there is no analogous improvement in terms of allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format.
Claim 3 from Example 47 was eligible because the Specification contained technical explanation of the improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection and the claims reflected the asserted improvement. The present specification does not provide technical description of an improvement to the technology or computer. Claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). None of recited hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, in this case, implementation via a processor/computer.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The hardware additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 3 from Example 47 was eligible because the Specification contained technical explanation of the improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection and the claims reflected the asserted improvement. The present specification does not provide technical description of an improvement to the technology or computer. Claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2014/0358748 – discloses a system that performs payroll calculations and transforms employee data into regional payroll data.
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 ALAN TORRICO-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3247. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/ALAN TORRICO-LOPEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights