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
Claims 1-20 have been cancelled and Claims 21-40 have been added; therefore, Claims 21-40 are currently pending in application 18/828,948.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/9/2024 and 10/2/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,086,890. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions disclose equivalent elements that use graph modeling computing for payroll data analysis to determine competitive relationships.
18/828,948
US 12,086,890 (17/451,054)
Independent Claims 21, 31, and 39
A system (method, programmed apparatus), comprising: one or more processors, coupled with memory, to:
[22. (32.) The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
perform payroll processing for the first entity and the second entity.]
[23. (33.) The system of claim 22, wherein the one or more processors are operated by a third entity that is different from the first entity and the second entity. ]
[25. (35.) The system of claim 21, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, via a network, from the first entity, the first payroll information comprising a first list of data, wherein each item in the first list of data is associated with a respective first identifier having a first relationship to the first entity; and receive, via the network, from the second entity, the second payroll information comprising a second list of data, wherein each item in the second list of data is associated with a respective second identifier having a second relationship to the second entity.]
[24. (34.) The system of claim 23, wherein the list of competitive entities indicates: i) the first entity is a competitor to the second entity, ii) the third entity is a noncompetitor to the first entity, and iii) the third entity is a noncompetitor to the second entity. ]
[26. The system of claim 25, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: create the graph model of the first list of data, the second list of data, and the list of competitive entities.]
access a database constructed in accordance with a graph model, the graph model corresponding to first payroll information of a first entity, second payroll information of a second entity, and a list of competitive entities;
execute at least one cypher query on the database to select a subset of the graph model that identifies at least one competitive relationship indicative of a conflict between a pair of identifiers related to the first payroll information and the second payroll information;
[27. (36.) The system of claim 25, wherein the pair of identifiers comprises the respective first identifier and the respective second identifier.]
generate a graphic illustration of the subset of the graph model that indicates the at least one competitive relationship;
provide first output to cause a display device to display the graphic illustration of the subset of the graph model; and
provide second output to cause the display device to display an indication of the competitive relationship between the pair of identifiers.
Independent Claims 1, 7, and 39
A system (method, programmed apparatus) comprising:
performing, by a computing system operated by a third entity, payroll processing for a first entity and a second entity different from the third entity;
receiving, by the computing system, across a network from the first entity, a first list of data corresponding to first payroll information, wherein each item in the first list of data is associated with a respective first identifier having a first relationship to the first entity;
receiving, by the computing system, across the network from the second entity, a second list of data corresponding to second payroll information, wherein each item in the second list of data is associated with a respective second identifier having a second relationship to the second entity;
receiving, by the computing system, a list of competitive entities that indicates: i) the first entity is a competitor to the second entity, ii) the third entity is a noncompetitor to the first entity, and iii) the third entity is a noncompetitor to the second entity;
creating, by the computing system, by executing a graph model generator, a graph model of the first list of data, the second list of data, and the list of competitive entities;
constructing, by the computing system, a database in accordance with the graph model of the first list of data, the second list of data, and the list of competitive entities;
executing, by the computing system, to identify one more conflicting relationships, at least one cypher query on the database constructed in accordance with the graph model of the first list of data, the second list of data, and the list of competitive entities;
selecting, by the computing system, responsive to execution of the at least one cypher query on the database, a subset of the graph model that identifies at least one competitive relationship indicative of a conflict between at least one pair of the respective first identifier related to the first payroll information and the respective second identifier related to the second payroll information;
creating, by the computing system, a graphic illustration of the subset of the graph model indicating the at least one competitive relationship;
outputting, by the computing system, to a display device, a first display comprising the graphic illustration of the subset of the graph model; and
outputting, by the computing system, to the display device, a second display, the second display illustrative of the at least one competitive relationship between the at least one pair of the respective first identifier and the respective second identifier.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea.
Claims 21-40 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea), without providing a practical application, and without providing significantly more.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Regarding Step 1,
Claims 21-30 are directed toward an apparatus (system). Claims 31-38 are directed toward a process (method). Claims 39-40 are directed toward a computer program product having computer-readable tangible storage media (article of manufacture). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
Claims 21-40 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 21, 31, and 39 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of company-based data analytics (payroll and competitive relationships).
Regarding independent claims 21, 31, and 39, the underlined limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
A method, comprising:
accessing, by one or more processors coupled with memory, a database constructed in accordance with a graph model, the graph model corresponding to first payroll information of a first entity, second payroll information of a second entity, and a list of competitive entities; [Collecting and organizing data (data gathering)]
executing, by the one or more processors, at least one cypher query on the database to select a subset of the graph model that identifies at least one competitive relationship indicative of a conflict between a pair of identifiers related to the first payroll information and the second payroll information; [Mathematical concepts (graph theory, node analysis) and mental processes (identifying a conflict)]
generating, by the one or more processors, a graphic illustration of the subset of the graph model that indicates the at least one competitive relationship; [Data visualization (representing data graphically)]
providing, by the one or more processors, first output to cause a display device to display the graphic illustration of the subset of the graph model; and [Data transmission/display (displaying data) - insignificant extra-solution activity]
providing, by the one or more processors, second output to cause the display device to display an indication of the competitive relationship between the pair of identifiers. [Data reporting (reporting analysis results) - insignificant extra-solution activity / no technical improvement]
As the underlined claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 21, 31, and 39 are directed to the abstract idea of Mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and Certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)).
Dependent claims 22-30, 32-38, and 40 provide further details to the abstract idea of claims 21, 31, and 39 regarding the received data, therefore, these claims include mathematical concepts and certain methods of organizing human activities for similar reasons provided above for claims 21, 31, and 39.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
Claims 21-40 fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “system”, a “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, a “processor”, “memory”, a “database”, a “network”, and a “display device”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment; they are simply automating a business process (a manager identifying competitor conflicts) with a computer.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant’s claimed invention. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Examples where the Courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated to be insignificant extra-solution activity include selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits. Dependent claims 22-30, 32-38, and 40 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B,
Claims 21-40 fail to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “system”, a “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, a “processor”, “memory”, a “database”, a “network”, and a “display device”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 22-30, 32-38, and 40 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 21, 31, and 39 respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims21, 31, and 39; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits. The addition of another abstract concept to the limitations of the claims does not render the claim other than abstract. Under the Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (PEG 2019), it specifically states that narrowing an abstract idea of claims do not resolve the claims of being "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements in the dependent claims only serve to further limit the abstract idea utilizing the computer components as a tool and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 21-40 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertz et al. (US 2019/0354544 A1) in view of Ho et al. (US 11,087,412 B1).
As per independent Claims 21, 31, and 39, Hertz discloses a system (method, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing processor-executable instructions) (See at least Figure 1, Paragraphs 0062-0066, Computer System 10 for computing connection significance between entities), comprising: one or more processors, coupled with memory, to:
access a database constructed in accordance with a graph model, the graph model corresponding to first information of a first entity, second information of a second entity, and a list of competitive entities (See at least Para 0078 and Para 0080, A directed graph is generated using the first and second list data and competitive entities data from the knowledge graph);
execute at least one cypher query on the database to select a subset of the graph model that identifies at least one competitive relationship indicative of a conflict between a pair of identifiers related to the first information and the second information (See at least Para 0180, SPARQL query language is used to search for and analyze information);
generate a graphic illustration of the subset of the graph model that indicates the at least one competitive relationship (See at least Para 0068, “Responsive data outputs may be generated at the Server 12 and returned to the remote access device 43 and presented and displayed to the associated user. FIG. 7 illustrates several exemplary input/output scenarios.”; See also Para 0036, Para 0078, Para 0087);
provide first output to cause a display device to display the graphic illustration of the subset of the graph model (See at least Para 0077, “Data output, such as the computed significance score, of the system is communicated from the computing device to a display device, such as a computer monitor”; See also Para 0036, Para 0078, Para 0087); and
provide second output to cause the display device to display an indication of the competitive relationship between the pair of identifiers (See at least Para 0080 and Para 0352; See also Para 0077-0078 and Para 0255 (Table 4)).
Hertz fails to disclose wherein the information processed/ analyzed is payroll information.
However the analogous art of Ho discloses, processing / analyzing payroll information (Ho: See at least Abstract, C18L40-67 and C19L1-22), A third entity of a weighted graph comprise a company with a payroll department for payroll processing of connected nodes of employees).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have included wherein the information processed/ analyzed is payroll information, as disclosed by Ho in the system disclosed by Hertz, for the advantage of providing a method/ system of identifying and displaying conflicts of interest with computer graph models, with the ability to increase method/ system efficiency and effectiveness by incorporating a wide variety of data types within the data analysis (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
As per Claims 22 and 32, Hertz and Ho disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: perform payroll processing for the first entity and the second entity (Ho: See at least Abstract, C18L40-67 and C19L1-22).
As per Claims 23 (22) and 33 (32), Hertz and Ho disclose wherein the one or more processors are operated by a third entity that is different from the first entity and the second entity (Hertz: See at least Figure 3, Para 0080, Entity A is distinct from Entity B and C).
As per Claims 24 (23) and 34 (33), Hertz and Ho disclose wherein the list of competitive entities indicates: i) the first entity is a competitor to the second entity, ii) the third entity is a noncompetitor to the first entity, and iii) the third entity is a noncompetitor to the second entity (Hertz: See at least Para 0080).
As per Claims 25 and 35, Hertz and Ho disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, via a network, from the first entity, the first payroll information comprising a first list of data, wherein each item in the first list of data is associated with a respective first identifier having a first relationship to the first entity; and receive, via the network, from the second entity, the second payroll information comprising a second list of data, wherein each item in the second list of data is associated with a respective second identifier having a second relationship to the second entity (Hertz: See at least Para 0078 and Para 0080, Entity A receives a first list of data from the set of Documents 36 related to the relationship with Entity B, Entity A receives a second list of data from the set of Documents 36 related to the relationship with Entity C) (Ho: See at least C18-C19).
As per Claim 26 (25), Hertz and Ho disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: create the graph model of the first list of data, the second list of data, and the list of competitive entities (Hertz: See at least Para 0078 and Para 0080, A directed graph is generated using the first and second list data and competitive entities data from the knowledge graph).
As per Claims 27 (25) and 36 (35), Hertz and Ho disclose wherein the pair of identifiers comprises the respective first identifier and the respective second identifier (Hertz: See at least Para 0352, RDFS 2106 provides employee identification information).
As per Claim 28 (25), Hertz and Ho disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: create the graph model comprising: first level nodes associated with each item in the first list of data and the second list of data (Hertz: See at least Para 0087-0088, A first level of neighboring entities within a first hop is created); second level nodes associated with the first entity and the second entity; first edge types between the first level nodes and the second level nodes based on the first relationship and the second relationship (Hertz: See at least Para 0087-0088, A second level of nodes two hops from the first entity is created); and a second edge type between at least two second level nodes based on the list of competitive entities (Hertz: See at least Para 0078, Para 0080, 0087-0088 and Para 0254-0256, Edges representing a competitive relationship are generated).
As per Claims 29, 37, and 40, Hertz and Ho disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive data exported from one or more relational databases; transform the data into nodes and edges; and connect the nodes and edges to build the graph model (Hertz: See at least Para 0078, Para 0080, and Para 0087-0088).
As per Claims 30 and 38, Hertz and Ho disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: generate an alert responsive to identification of the at least one competitive relationship indicative of the conflict (Hertz: See at least, Para 0068, “Responsive data outputs may be generated at the Server 12 and returned to the remote access device 43 and presented and displayed to the associated user. FIG. 7 illustrates several exemplary input/output scenarios”; See also Para 0036, Para 0078, Para 0080, Para 0087-0088, and Para 0256).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
April 6, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629