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 final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 04/13/2026. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9 and 17 have been amended. No newly added or cancelled claims.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 01/27/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,720,977 and 12,106,386 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method, system and computer program product for managing user database.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“providing…for display a user interface by an application on a client device in which a user can request to receive compensation for a portion of time worked during a time interval before a subsequent date at which compensation for the time interval is scheduled to be distributed by an employer of the user;
responsive to a request from the user, accessing…an entry in a database associated with the user and including information representative of a total amount of uncompensated time worked by the user;
receiving…a requested amount of compensation from the user via the user interface; and
in response to 1) the requested amount of compensation being less than a total amount of compensation the user is owed, 2) an amount of time reported but not recorded as worked by the user not exceeding a historical average for the user, and 4) explicit confirmation from the user, automatically:
executing…a network action between the online system and a system associated with the user; and
modifying…a database entry associated with the user by subtracting an amount of time associated with the network action from the database entry.
The claimed invention recites the steps of, 1) receiving a user request through a user interface, 2) retrieving user data from a database, 3) receiving user input (amount of requested compensation), 4) comparing received user input to stored data in association with one or more defined rules, and 5) executing a network action and updating the database.
The above steps describe the process of managing user database based on user input. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (managing personal behavior or interaction between people) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interaction between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements in the form of one or more computing elements (online system, database and client device) to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract ideas identified above. The computing elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. The computing elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 9 and 17 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In view of the prosecution history of U.S. Patent Appl. Nos. 17/572,499 and 18/335,394 (now U.S. Patent Nos. 11,720,977 and 12,106,386 respectively), none of the relevant patent and non-patent prior art (single or in combination) teaches the combination:
“in response to 1) the requested amount of compensation being less than a total amount of compensation the user is owed, 2) an amount of time reported but not recorded as worked by the user not exceeding a historical average for the user, and 3) explicit confirmation from the user, automatically:
executing, by the online system, a network action between the online system and a system associated with the user; and
modifying, by the online system, a database entry associated with the user by subtracting an amount of time associated with the network action from the database entry”,
as recited in claims 1, 9 and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above under section 101, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim amendments of “executing, by the online system, a network action between the online system and a system associated with the user” and “modifying, by the online system, a database entry associated with the user by subtracting an amount of time associated with the network action from the database entry” simply describe transmitting/sending information between two devices over a network and updating a database based on the information. “Transmitting information over a network” and “updating/storing information in a database” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, the courts have held that “transmitting data over a network” and “electronic recording keeping (or updating an activity log)” are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
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 OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights