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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office action is in reply to the Applicant arguments filed on 24 February 2026.
2. No claims have been amended.
3. Claims 1-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 24 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Affidavit filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 has been considered by the Examiner but the statements/declaration do not support the below maintained rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the abstract ideas and the 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejection.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection for Claims 1-25, Applicant argues that: (1) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Still commensurate to the two-part subject matter eligibility framework decision in the Federal court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., (Alice), 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update), and the new “July 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, including on Artificial Intelligence”, and the Examiner details the maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the below rejection with further explanation. Applicant argues that: “Claim 1 is not directed to a mental process or certain method of organizing human activity; Claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application; and mentions of Example 37 and a Federal Circuit court case of Core Wireless” (see Remarks/Arguments pages 2-8). However the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims still recite Certain methods of organizing human activity –marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claims recite a method for managing, formatting, and presenting group calendar data and tasks on a touch screen. Breaking down the claim's core actions—displaying subsets of user-adapted information, receiving interaction data, and identifying users—reveals that the core of the invention is fundamentally about data organization, display configuration, and human-computer interactions. The Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit have consistently held that the manipulation, organization, and presentation of information (such as setting up rules for displaying certain user tasks on a calendar) are classic information-handling activities and in the instant case for the Applicant, could be manually displayed on a wallboard/chalkboard/whiteboard/overhead projector display. Because the claim primarily automates these mental or administrative tasks—albeit in a multi-user environment—the focus of the claimed invention is on the concept itself, not on an improvement in how a computer operates. In contrast to Applicant’s claimed invention, Example 37 and Core Wireless are focused on an improvement to graphical user interface (GUI) technology dissimilar to Applicant’s standard use of a generic GUI for utilizing a generic computer with pre-programmed instructions based on user input for data results. In summary as indicated below with further clarification through Steps 1-2B, the recitation of a computer (device; one or more processors; memory; interactive graphical user interface; touch screen display) to perform the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant submits that: (2) Maikhuri et al. (Maikhuri) (US 2024/0144151) in view of Chalmers et al. (Chalmers) (US 2020/0104194) do not teach or suggest in un-amended Claim 1: The cited references fail to disclose or suggest a multi-user graphical user interface with distinct display regions; The cited references fail to disclose or suggest a repositioning affordances based on behavioral insights” [see Remarks pages 8-11]. With regard to argument (2), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the claims are not amended, Applicant basically and broadly argues the cited prior art do not teach the broadly and various recited amendments. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. The Examiner has a duty and responsibility to the public and to Applicant to interpret the claims as broadly as reasonably possible during prosecution. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1 393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process:
Step 1: Step 1: Claims 1-25 are focused to statutory categories of invention, namely “device; system; non-transitory” sets.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1-25 recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely, the claims as a whole recite a method for managing, formatting, and presenting group calendar data and tasks on a touch screen. Breaking down the claim's core actions—displaying subsets of user-adapted information, receiving interaction data, and identifying users—reveals that the core of the invention is fundamentally about data organization, display configuration, and human-computer interactions by:
“displaying a shared interactive graphical user interface calendar on the touch screen display, wherein the shared graphical user interface is configured to enable a plurality of users included in a group associated with data stored in a database of the shared organization device to interact with a plurality of user-adapted affordances displayed on the shared graphical user interface, wherein each of the plurality of user-adapted affordances are associated in the database with at least one task of a plurality of tasks and each of the plurality of user-adapted affordances are displayed based on the data stored in the database, and wherein displaying the shared interactive graphical user interface comprises:
displaying a first subset of user-adapted affordances associated with a first user at a first plurality of locations on the touch screen display shared calendar, wherein the first subset of user-adapted affordances are based on user-associated display settings for the first user;
displaying a second subset of interactive user-adapted affordances associated with a second user at a second region of the touch screen display, wherein the second subset of interactive user-adapted affordances are based on user-associated display settings for the second user; and
displaying a plurality of assignable interactive affordances at a third region of the touch screen display, wherein the plurality of assignable interactive affordances are each associated in the database with at least one task of the plurality of tasks;
receive activity data based on an interaction with at least one of the plurality of assignable interactive affordances;
receiving activity data based on an interaction with at least one of the plurality of assignable interactive affordances; receive an identifier associated with the first user or the second user based on an interaction with the shared interactive graphical user interface;
determine that the received activity data is associated with the first user or the second user based on the received identifier;
updating a database of the shared organization device to include the activity data, comprising individually associating the activity data with at least one or more users of the plurality of users that completed the plurality of tasks;
determining at least one behavioral insight associated with at least one user of the plurality of users based on the updated database, comprising comparing activity data associated with at least one user of the plurality of users to activity data associated with at least one other user of the plurality of users; and
update the shared interactive graphical user interface of the shared organization device by repositioning the at least one assignable interactive affordance in either the first region of the touch screen display or the second region of the touch screen display based on the at least one behavioral insight”
The claims as a whole recite certain groupings under the following abstract categories:
Certain methods of organizing human activity –managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Group calendaring, task management, and organizing shared data and the manipulation, organization, and presentation of information (such as setting up rules for displaying certain user tasks on a calendar) are classic information-handling activities.
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The conceptual organization of scheduling, assigning tasks, and identifying individual users. Breaking down the claim's core actions—displaying subsets of user-adapted information, receiving interaction data, and identifying users—reveals that the core of the invention is fundamentally about data organization, display configuration, and human-computer interactions. The Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit have consistently held that the manipulation, organization, and presentation of information (such as setting up rules for displaying certain user tasks on a calendar) are classic information-handling activities.
See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.
Prong Two: Claims 1-25: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims contain computer components (“device; one or more processors; memory”, etc.) (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶'s 3-12, 38-41, 51) that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Because the claim primarily automates these mental or administrative tasks—albeit in a multi-user environment—the focus of the claimed invention is on the concept itself, not on an improvement in how a computer operates. It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) (“The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point”). See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of DNA amplification and analysis are not “sufficient” to render claim 1 patent eligible merely because they are physical steps). Conversely, the presence of a non-physical or intangible additional element does not doom the claims, because tangibility is not necessary for eligibility under the Alice/Mayo test. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“that the improvement is not defined by reference to ‘physical’ components does not doom the claims”). See also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016), (holding that a process producing an intangible result (a sequence of synchronized, animated characters) was eligible because it improved an existing technological process). Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h).
Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 1-25 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of “device; one or more processors; memory; interactive graphical user interface; touch screen display”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery (e.g., see Applicants’ un-published Specification ¶'s 3-12, 38-41, 51) regarding using existing computer processors as well as program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored. “system 100” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit and display data) and/or use computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int' l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maikhuri et al. (Maikhuri) (US 2024/0144151) in view of Chalmers et al. (Chalmers) (US 2020/0104194).
With regard to broadly recited Claims 1, 23-25, Maikhuri teaches for determining at least one behavioral insight (worker behavior; physical interactions (“worker activities”)) using a shared organization (A digital personal assistant is a software-based service or agent, often residing in the cloud, which is designed to perform tasks for an individual and/or help end-users complete tasks online; arrangements are provided that enable a user, such as an employee or worker, to have a digital companion/coach configured to provide personalized assistance and improvements for that worker, based on monitoring of worker job habits, task performance, and/or physical movements, which arrangements are able to track, trace, analyze, recommend, and share regularly or on-demand basis; Configuring sharing of worker data, in accordance with worker requirements and preferences, such as sharing worker data with managers, supervisors, coaches, and/or mentors in the form of an assessment or development) device/method/system/non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions comprising: a touch-screen display; one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the shared organization device (system 100) (see at least paragraphs 2, 83-94; 101-114; 143, Abstract) to:
display a shared interactive graphical user interface on the touch screen display (computer system 1100 may include processor/central processing unit (CPU) 1102, volatile memory 1104 (e.g., RAM), non-volatile memory 1106 (e.g., one or more hard disk drives (HDDs), one or more solid state drives (SSDs) such as a flash drive, one or more hybrid magnetic and solid state drives, and/or one or more virtual storage volumes, such as a cloud storage, or a combination of physical storage volumes and virtual storage volumes), graphical user interface (GUI) 1110 (e.g., a touchscreen, a display, and so forth) and input and/or output (I/O) device 1108 (e.g., a mouse/keyboard 1150, a camera 1152, a microphone 1154, speakers 1156 and optionally other custom sensors 1158, providing user input, such as biometric sensors, accelerometers, position sensors, etc.); A method comprises receiving a set of raw worker data records associated with one or more worker activities of a worker, each raw worker data record comprising one or more of an image, a video, information from a sensor, information from interaction with a tool, and information from interaction with a device. A first analysis, configured to analyze the set of raw worker data records for one or more indications regarding whether any worker activities include one or more undesired behaviors, is performed on the set of raw worker data records; Configuring one or more systems to be set up to implement some or all of the recommendations for the worker and/or in connection with worker actions, such as controlling equipment or machines with which a worker interacts to compensate for issues resulting from worker activities, automatically scheduling worker tasks and actions (e.g., training) on a calendar, filling out forms to enroll in worker training, linking or devising training to improve skills and/or reduce injuries, downloading or linking to recommended reading, etc.), wherein the shared graphical user interface is configured to enable a plurality of users (worker; workers) included in a group associated with data stored in a database of the shared organization device to interact with a plurality of user-adapted affordances ((The recommendations engine 220, in certain embodiments, analyses worker behavior by categorizing and documenting the time spent on various activities/tasks completed by the worker during a specific time period)) displayed on the shared graphical user interface, wherein each of the plurality of user-adapted affordances are associated in the database with at least one task of a plurality of tasks and each of the plurality of user-adapted affordances are displayed based on the data stored in the database (receiving a set of raw worker data records associated with one or more worker activities of a worker, each raw worker data record comprising one or more of an image, a video, information from a sensor, information from interaction with a tool, and information from interaction with a device. A first analysis, configured to analyze the set of raw worker data records for one or more indications regarding whether any worker activities include one or more undesired behaviors, is performed on the set of raw worker data records; Configuring one or more systems to be set up to implement some or all of the recommendations for the worker and/or in connection with worker actions, such as controlling equipment or machines with which a worker interacts to compensate for issues resulting from worker activities, automatically scheduling worker tasks and actions (e.g., training) on a calendar, filling out forms to enroll in worker training, linking or devising training to improve skills and/or reduce injuries) (see at least paragraphs 2, 62-68, 83-94; 101-114; 143; FIG.’s 1-10), and wherein displaying the shared interactive graphical user interface comprises:
displaying a first subset of interactive (interactions) user-adapted affordances (a product that combines the personalization and continuous learning of the consumer type of digital personal assistants, along with the advantages, corporate access, and features of employee experience platforms, which also goes beyond to provide additional important features, such as tracking multiple platforms and types of user physical interactions, including but not limited to physical movements, gestures, behaviors, interactions with tools, etc., analyzing sentiments and other behavioral cues, applying knowledge and information from accumulated physical interaction information (both from that worker/employee and possibly others) and classifying and analyzing the user interactions) associated with a first user (receiving a set of raw worker data records associated with one or more worker activities of a worker, each respective raw worker data record comprising one or more of an image, a video, information from a sensor, information from interaction with a tool, and information from interaction with a device; performing a first analysis on the set of raw worker data records, the first analysis configured to analyze the set of raw worker data records for one or more indications regarding whether any worker activities include one or more undesired behaviors) wherein the first subset of interactive user-adapted affordances are based on user-associated display settings for the first user (a touchscreen, a display; settings) (see at least paragraphs 20, 28, 62-68, 78-98; 101-118; 143; 180, FIG.’s 1-10);
displaying a second subset of interactive user-adapted affordances associated with a second user (performing, based on the first analysis, a second analysis, the second analysis configured to categorize and document worker behavior as a function of time; performing, based on the second analysis, a third analysis, the third analysis configured to analyze worker behavior for undesired conditions; and generating, based on at least one of, second analysis, and third analysis, a summary of worker activity), wherein the second subset of interactive user-adapted affordances are based on user-associated display settings for the second user ((The recommendations engine 220, in certain embodiments, analyses worker behavior by categorizing and documenting the time spent on various activities/tasks completed by the worker during a specific time period; settings) (see at least paragraphs 28, 62-68, 78, 83-94; 108, 118, 163, 180; Abstract);
displaying a plurality of assignable interactive affordances (analysis output), wherein the plurality of assignable interactive affordances are each associated in the database with at least one task of the plurality of tasks (specific tasks or actions that a user performs) (see at least paragraphs 160, 161, 167; FIG.’s 3, 8);
receive activity data (a tool is provided that gives an employee or worker complete control over the tracking of the worker's activities and generating the associated analytics about those activities. In certain embodiments, the worker has the ability to enable and disable sharing of analytics and other information, including time spent on projects, user activities and movements, etc., with the worker's leaders, supervisors, and/or subordinates. In at least some embodiments, an intelligent worker assessment engine is provided that enables self-management, self-control, and self-evolution) based on an interaction with at least one of the plurality of assignable interactive affordances (to extend virtual assistant and robotic automation capabilities to include a person/individual specific and targeted tasks as configured and learned from the behavior of that person over a period of time. These new tools, part of a system that is referred to herein as an Intelligent Worker Assessment Engine (IWAE), spearhead the innovation in the next generation of employee engagement. In certain embodiments, the IWEA uses images of recorded use activities, such as surveillance camera images, to uncover patterns of employees' behavior at work and compares them to trained image data to warn and recommend health-related, smart work intelligences behavior to workers; The IWAE, in certain embodiments, includes a centralized engine that uses gesture recognition technology to detect individual workers’ actions and behaviors that differ from expected, advantageous, optimal, or safe behavior using existing sensors (e.g., camera systems, video surveillance equipment, etc.). In certain embodiments, the IWAE examines the time it takes the worker to accomplish the task, as well as the worker's behavior during task execution and the worker's location over time), (see at least paragraphs 95-98, 107-109, 118, 163);
receive an identifier associated with the first user or the second user based on an interaction with the shared interactive graphical user interface ( “Human Behavior Recognition” (HBR) [also known in the art as “Human Activity Recognition” (HAR)] at least refers to the method of extracting and predicting the movements of the human body, using a machine or device such as a camera or sensor-based device. Some known HBR/HAR systems examine human activities from video sequences or still images and attempt to correctly identify and classify the input data from the video sequences and/or still images, into an underlying category of activity. For example, in some systems, human activities can be categorized into certain categories. In some HBR/HAR systems, human activities, movements, behaviors, etc., can be further classified into sub-categories; unique identifiers) (see at least paragraphs 62, 70, 102, 129);
determine that the received activity data is associated with the first user or the second user based on the received identifier (The image/video processing system 212 includes an intelligent processing system 308 and a set of identifiers 310. The intelligent processing 308 includes a channels input processing system 330, a behavior recognition analysis system, a segmentation and convolution neural network processing system 334, an object position time analysis engine 216, an optional biometric identification system 213, and an object comparative analysis system 218. These are explained further herein. The identifiers module 310 is configured to parse and identify/recognize activity identifiers such as behaviors, movements, and gestures 340, context/environment 344, and normal/abnormal activities 348, to help the behavior recognition analysis 332 to interpret the actions, gestures, behaviors, etc., based on information in the personal worker knowledge expert repository 210, on the training data set 206, and on other known information, such as data about behaviors movements/gestures 340, data about the context/environment 344 in which user activity took place, and information about normal and abnormal activities 348) (see at least paragraphs 62, 70, 102, 129);
update the database of the shared organization device to include the activity data, comprising individually associating the activity data with at least one of the first user and the second user (the IWAE 202 is implemented in a “per worker” fashion, with each worker associated with a dedicated IPWE. In certain embodiments (not shown in FIG. 1 or 3), an IWAE 202 can include a plurality of repositories 210, wherein each repository advantageously is unique to a respective worker 303. This can be advantageous, for example, in embodiments where a given stream of information (e.g., set of images or videos) might include multiple workers, working independently and/or together, who each want to use the system 300 to improve effectiveness, reduce injuries, etc., such that the IWAE 202 can analyze, classify, and make recommendations for all participants based on the recorded interactions. Another example where an IWAE 202 can include a plurality of repositories may be for a supervisor 305 who wants to understand the performance of a group of employees they supervise, or to compare the performance of multiple different workers 303 who may be performing the same task at different times. In another example embodiment, there may be a single personal worker knowledge expert repository 210 that is configured so that repository data for each worker 303 or other user is included therein but is segmented. In an example of a recorded interaction containing multiple workers, the personal worker knowledge expert repository 110 would be updated for each attendee in their respective segment data) (see at least paragraph 141);
determine at least one behavioral insight (worker behavior; physical interactions (“worker activities”)) associated with at least one of the first user and the second user based on the updated database, comprising comparing activity data associated with the first user and the second user (the IWAE 202 is configured to monitor one or more worker action, gestures, movements, interactions with tools/machines and/or other physical interactions (“worker activities”). Details of user interactions, activities, and/or content (“raw user data”) for a given worker 303 recorded (block 415) and provided as a raw user data input to the IWAE 202, via storage in the detected object/corpus repository 210 (also referred to herein as the personal worker knowledge expert repository 210); As noted above, in some embodiments, the worker activities can include information from multiple types of channels 306 and may, in certain instances, be part of streams of information from another worker, such as where both workers appear in the same video stream. A training data set is accessed (block 425), e.g., the training data set shown in FIGS. 1, 3) (block 430). Note, as well, that the training data set optionally may be accessed instead or again at a later time in this process, such as when needed during image processing (blocks 437-465) by the recommendations engine to perform object comparative analysis (block 475) and generate recommendations (block 475)) (see at least paragraphs 116-118, 143-145);
update the shared interactive graphical user interface of the shared organization device based on the at least one behavioral insight In an example of a recorded interaction containing multiple workers, the personal worker knowledge expert repository 110 would be updated for each attendee in their respective segment data) (see at least paragraph 141);
Maikhuri does not specifically teach: at a first/second/third region of the touch screen display; by repositioning the at least one assignable interactive affordance in either the first region of the touch screen display or the second region of the touch screen display. Chalmers teaches: at a first/second/third region of the touch screen display (Contact intensity thresholds, duration thresholds, and movement thresholds are, in some circumstances, combined in a variety of different combinations in order to create heuristics for distinguishing two or more different gestures directed to the same input element or region so that multiple different interactions with the same input element are enabled to provide a richer set of user interactions and responses); by repositioning the at least one assignable interactive affordance in either the first region of the touch screen display or the second region of the touch screen display (The user optionally makes contact with touch-sensitive display system 112 using any suitable object or appendage, such as a stylus, a finger, and so forth. In some embodiments, the user interface is designed to work with finger-based contacts and gestures, which can be less precise than stylus-based input due to the larger area of contact of a finger on the touch screen. In some embodiments, the device translates the rough finger-based input into a precise pointer/cursor position or command for performing the actions desired by the user; Contact/motion module 130 optionally detects a gesture input by a user. Different gestures on the touch-sensitive surface have different contact patterns (e.g., different motions, timings, and/or intensities of detected contacts)) in analogous art of user-behavior for the purposes of: “object updater 177 creates and updates objects used in application 136-1. For example, object updater 177 creates a new user-interface object or updates the position of a user -interface object. GUI updater 178 updates the GUI. For example, GUI updater 178 prepares display information and sends it to graphics module 132 for display on a touch-sensitive display” (see at least paragraphs 50, 62-65, 134, 341).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the devices, methods, and user interfaces for providing audio notifications as taught by Chalmers in the system of Maikhuri, 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.
With regard to Claim 2, Maikhuri teaches wherein updating the shared interactive graphical user interface comprises displaying a graphical representation of the at least one behavioral insight (see at least paragraphs 141, 73, 160, FIG.’s 2A-2D).
With regard to Claim 3, Maikhuri teaches:
a least productive user included in the plurality of users associated with the shared organization device (see at least paragraphs 97, 98);
a most productive user included in the plurality of users associated with the shared organization device (see at least paragraphs 175-178);
a total number of times one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks were completed (see at least paragraphs 175-178);
a frequency at which one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks were completed (see at least paragraphs 175-178);
a latency between an assignment and a completion of one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks (see at least paragraphs 82);
a number of consecutive times one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks were performed by a particular user included in the plurality of users (see at least paragraphs 113-116);
a number of consecutive times one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks were performed at a particular time (see at least paragraphs 113-116);
a most productive day of a week for the plurality of users associated with the shared organization device (see at least paragraphs 158, 169);
a least busy day of a week for the plurality of users associated with the shared organization device (see at least paragraphs 158, 169-170);
an on-time completion metric of the plurality of tasks for the plurality of users associated with the shared organization device (see at least paragraph 163);
an optimal time for assignment of one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks (see at least paragraphs 103-104).
With regard to Claim 4, Maikhuri teaches: generate at least one behavior change recommendation based on the at least one behavioral insight (see at least paragraph 108).
With regard to Claim 5, Maikhuri teaches wherein the at least one behavior change recommendation comprises any one or more of:
a recommended assignment of a particular task for one or more users included in the plurality of users (see at least paragraph 80);
a recommended reward associated with a particular task of the plurality of tasks (see at least paragraph 129);
a recommended routine comprising a sequence of tasks (see at least paragraph 118);
a recommended addition to an existing routine of a user in the plurality of users (see at least paragraph 110);
a recommended time to complete a particular task of the plurality of tasks (see at least paragraph 110).
With regard to Claim 6, Maikhuri teaches wherein generating the at least one behavior change recommendation comprises generating a recommendation for increasing a productivity of a least productive user included in the plurality of users associated with the shared organization device (see at least paragraph 101).
With regard to Claim 7, Maikhuri teaches wherein generating the at least one behavior change recommendation comprises generating a recommendation for increasing a number of tasks assigned to a most productive user included in the plurality of users associated with the shared organization device (see at least paragraph 101).
With regard to Claim 8, Maikhuri teaches wherein generating the at least one behavior change recommendation comprises generating a recommendation for reducing a number of tasks assigned to a most productive user included in the plurality of users associated with the shared organization device (see at least paragraph 20).
With regard to Claim 9, Maikhuri teaches wherein generating the at least one behavior change recommendation comprises generating a recommendation for reducing a latency between an assignment and a completion of one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks (see at least paragraph 101).
With regard to Claim 10, Maikhuri teaches wherein generating the at least one behavior change recommendation comprises generating a recommendation for increasing a frequency at which one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks are completed (see at least paragraph 177).
With regard to Claim 11, Maikhuri teaches wherein generating the at least one behavior change recommendation comprises generating a recommendation to assign one or more tasks for completion at a particular time (see at least paragraph 80).
With regard to Claim 12, Maikhuri teaches:
display at least one interactive affordance associated with the at least on behavior change recommendation (see at least paragraphs 80-82);
receive a user selection of an interactive affordance of the at least one interactive affordance associated with the at least one behavior change recommendation indicative of acceptance of the at least one behavior change recommendation associated with the selected affordance (see at least paragraph 108);
update the database of the shared organization device based on the accepted behavior change recommendation by associating a particular task with a particular user included in the plurality of users (see at least paragraphs 133-138).
With regard to Claim 13, Maikhuri teaches: display the particular task associated with the particular user included in the plurality of users according to one or more user-associated display settings for the particular user (see at least paragraphs 133-138).
With regard to Claim 14, Maikhuri teaches: in response to receiving the interaction with at least one of the plurality of assignable interactive affordances, update the shared interactive graphical user interface to display an updated assignable interactive affordance indicating a complete status of a task associated with the at least one assignable interactive affordance (see at least paragraphs 14, 111-118, 133-141).
With regard to Claim 15, Maikhuri teaches wherein the database of the shared organization device comprises, for each of one or more users included in the plurality of users, a user profile comprising data associated with one or more tasks assigned to the respective user (see at least paragraphs 99-101).
With regard to Claim 16, Maikhuri teaches wherein determining the at least one behavioral insight comprises comparing data associated with one or more tasks assigned to a first user of the plurality stored in a user profile of the first user to data associated with one or more tasks assigned to a second user of the plurality stored in a user profile of the second user (see at least paragraph 113).
With regard to Claim 17, Maikhuri teaches wherein the database of the shared organization device comprises, for the plurality of users associated with the shared organization device, a group profile comprising group behavioral trend data associated with completion of the plurality of tasks by one or more users included the plurality of users (see at least paragraph 113).
With regard to Claim 18, Maikhuri teaches wherein determining the at least one behavioral insight comprises comparing the group behavioral trend data to group behavioral trend data associated with a different group of users associated with a different organization device (see at least paragraphs 98, 108-113, 133).
With regard to Claim 19, Maikhuri teaches wherein the shared organization device is configured to wirelessly communicate with a plurality of other wireless devices (see at least paragraphs 55-68).
With regard to Claim 20, Maikhuri teaches wherein the shared organization device is configured such that the plurality of other wireless devices can control the display of the shared organization device using a mobile application (see at least paragraphs 22, 55-68).
With regard to Claim 21, Maikhuri teaches wherein the shared organization device comprises a front facing camera (see at least paragraphs 55-68).
With regard to Claim 22, Maikhuri teaches wherein the shared organization device is configured to be mounted on a wall (see at least paragraphs 24, 55-68).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Matsuoka et al. (US 2023/0057896)
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights