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 .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 9/23/2024.
Claims 1-32 are presented for examination.
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 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). (MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-30 recite a series of steps, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., process. Claim 31 recites non-transitory computer readable medium which is a tangible article and thus falling within one of the four statutory classes, i.e. manufacture. Claim 32 recites tangible components, thus falling the one of the four statutory classes; i.e. machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. (MPEP 2106.04).
Representative claim 1 recites:
accessing a policy , wherein the policy includes a plurality of policies, wherein each policy in the plurality of policies includes a plurality of benefit information and a plurality of compliance requirements, and wherein the plurality of benefit information is interrelated by the plurality of compliance requirements; modeling, with a plurality of mathematical formulas, the plurality of benefit information and compliance requirements; creating a multivariate empirical algorithm (MEA), wherein the multivariate empirical algorithm arithmetically links one or more mathematical formulas within the plurality of mathematical formulas, and wherein the arithmetical links are based on a usage configuration within a plurality of usage configurations; gathering, from a user, personal information, wherein the personal information comprises a user configuration, and wherein the personal information includes a first priority; updating the multivariate empirical algorithm, wherein the updating is based on the user configuration; identifying, one or more user-qualified compensation factors, wherein the identifying is based on the multivariate empirical algorithm; sequencing the one or more user-qualified compensation factors, wherein the sequencing optimizes the one or more user-qualified compensation factors for the first priority; and presenting, to the user, the one or more user-qualified compensation factors that were sequenced, wherein the presenting includes a visual demonstration of a payment estimate and a duration estimate of each of the one or more user-qualified compensation factors, and wherein the visual demonstration includes a total benefit payment estimate and a total benefit time duration.
The limitations of compensation optimization based on personal information, covers managing personal behavior and falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Prong Two distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
• database and processor (claims 1, 31 and 32);
The “database”, “processor” are recited at a higher level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. They are no more than a tool to perform the “accessing”, “modeling ,“identifying” steps.
The additional elements of accessing a database, processor for modeling and identifying are considered as “apply it” as the claim invokes the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (similar to Apple, Inc. v Ameranth and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v Capital One Bank (USA).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception).
Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)). (MPEP 2106.05)
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they don’t impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “server”, alone and in combination amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the limitation “database” and “processor”, it is noted that sending information over a network has been recognized in the courts as being Well Understood Routine and Conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) - i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Therefore, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception and cannot provide an inventive concept. (MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity).
Therefore, claims 1-32 are not patent eligible.
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 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colner (2017/0316382) in view of Jeong (2021/0150451).
With respect to claims 1-2, 28, 31 and 32, Colner teaches systems and methods for optimization comprising:
a memory which stores instructions; one or more processors attached to the memory wherein the one or more processors, when executing the instructions which are stored (see Figures 1 and 2).
accessing a policy database, wherein the policy database includes a plurality of policies, wherein each policy in the plurality of policies includes a plurality of benefit information and a plurality of compliance requirements, and wherein the plurality of benefit information is interrelated by the plurality of compliance requirements (see figure 2 and paragraph 0023 for data storage system 202 comprises compensation scheme information 204, used to specify a set of compensation plans, and compensation plan information 206, used to specify plan details);
modeling using one or more processors, the plurality of benefit information and compliance requirements (see Figure 2 and paragraph 0023 for compensation modeling system 210 determines a compensation model based at least in part on the set of compensation assignment plans that comprise the compensation scheme associated with model request 214);
gathering, from a user, personal information, wherein the personal information comprises a user configuration, and wherein the personal information includes a first priority; identifying, using one or more processors, one or more user-qualified compensation factors (see Figure 3 and paragraph 0026 for compensation factors “Job Profile—Product Engineer,” “Citizenship Status—USA,” “Compensation Grade—3,” “Is Manager—No,” and “Last Review Rating—5” of compensation factors column 302 are associated with compensation plans “PERF,” “SFZ2,” “VPBC,” and “BASE” of compensation plans column 304. Compensation factors “Job Profile—Financial Assistant,” “Collective Agreement—Citizens United,” “External Pay Group—Business Group,” “On Leave—Yes,” “Pay Rate Type—Hourly,” and “Scheduled Hours—40” of compensation factors column 302 are associated with compensation plans “PERF,” “STIP,” “SZF1,” “SFZ2,” “FCZ2,” and “BASE” of compensation plans column 304. Compensation factors “Job Profile—Sales Engineer,” “Gender—Male,” “Work Shift—Night,” “Time in Position—2 months,” “Contract Reason—Temp hire,” and “Unions—Active” of compensation factors column 302 are associated with compensation plans “VPBC,” “FCZ1,” “DEAR,” and “BASE” of compensation plans column 304);
sequencing the one or more user-qualified compensation factors, wherein the sequencing optimizes the one or more user-qualified compensation factors for the first priority; and presenting, to the user, the one or more user-qualified compensation factors that were sequenced, wherein the presenting includes a visual demonstration of a payment estimate and a duration estimate of each of the one or more user-qualified compensation factors, and wherein the visual demonstration includes a total benefit payment estimate and a total benefit time duration (see Figure 6 and paragraph 0039 for compensation model 600 comprises a plan name and an allocated monetary amount associated with the plan. Column 602 comprises plan names and column 604 comprises associated allocated amounts. In figure shown, plan name “PERF” is associated with an allocated amount of $17,000. Plan name “SFZ2” is associated with an allocated amount of $2,286.44. Plan name “VPBC” is associated with an allocated amount of $2,053.75. Plan name “BASE” is associated with an allocated amount of $82,149.81).
With respect to creating a multivariate empirical algorithm (MEA), wherein the multivariate empirical algorithm arithmetically links one or more mathematical formulas within the plurality of mathematical formulas, and wherein the arithmetical links are based on a usage configuration within a plurality of usage configurations and updating the multivariate empirical algorithm, wherein the updating is based on the user configuration. Colner teaches a plurality of usage configurations and updating is based on the user configuration (see figure 3 and paragraph 0026 for Leave—Yes,” “Pay Rate Type—Hourly,” and “Scheduled Hours—40” of compensation factors column 302 are associated with compensation plans “PERF,” “STIP,” “SZF1,” “SFZ2,” “FCZ2,” and “BASE” of compensation plans column 304. Compensation factors “Job Profile—Sales Engineer,” “Gender—Male,” “Work Shift—Night,” “Time in Position—2 months,” “Contract Reason—Temp hire,” and “Unions—Active” of compensation factors column 302 are associated with compensation plans “VPBC,” “FCZ1,” “DEAR,” and “BASE” of compensation plans column 304). Colner is silent as to creating a multivariate empirical algorithm (MEA), wherein the multivariate empirical algorithm arithmetically links one or more mathematical formulas within the plurality of mathematical formulas, and the arithmetical links. On the other hand, Jeong teaches on paragraph 0078 “algorithms for processing the workload prediction and the predetermined productivity capability. The algorithms may include mathematical formulas, logic, or analytical models. The algorithms are used by labor management system (LMS) 125 to produce a set of rules for generating resource data”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included in the plurality of usage configurations and updating is based on the user configuration of Colner to include the multivariate empirical algorithm (MEA), wherein the multivariate empirical algorithm arithmetically links one or more mathematical formulas within the plurality of mathematical formulas of Jeong because such a modification would help the user better determine their compensation offerings based on the set of rules of Jeong.
Claims 3-5 further recite identifying and sequencing are based on second Multivariate algorithm algorithm/MEA and choosing by the user, between the MEA and the second MEA. The combination of Colner and Jeong teach MEA (algorithms may include mathematical formulas, logic or analytical models). The combination of Colner and Jeong are silent as to a second MEA and the user choosing between the MEA. Official notice is taken that is old and well known to allow the users to choose between algorithms such as the user choosing between algorithm name and code dispatches the correct algorithm in order to support A/B testing and the like. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included a second MEA and the user choosing between MEA in order to support A/B testing and the like.
With respect to claim 6, Colner further teaches amending the visual demonstration, wherein the amending is responsive to the revising (see paragraph 0021 for a compensation model is triggered to be updated based on updated compensation data, a revision of the compensation scheme, a revision of the compensation factors, a revision of a compensation plan, a revision of compensation plan interdependencies, or a recalculation of the compensation model (e.g. as triggered by a user).
With respect to claim 7, Colner further teaches reducing the one or more user-qualified compensation factors, wherein at least two user-qualified compensation factors in the one or more user-qualified compensation factors are offset (see paragraph 0034 for the base pay plan monetary amount is determined by the compensation modeling system based on the compensation scheme and corresponding compensation plan information. In the example shown, plan “SFZ2” is shown to be 12% of “GRNPS1.” Percentage basis name “GRNPS1” refers to a set of plans “PERF” and “VPBC.” In some embodiments, the monetary amount of “SFZ2” is 12% of the monetary amount of the sum of “PERF” and “VPBC.” In some embodiments, an additional field is included in compensation plan information 400, allowing the percentage to be taken from the difference of the total compensation amount and the sum of the monetary amounts of plans included in the percentage basis. For example, in a subtraction case, the monetary amount of “SFZ2” is 12% of the total compensation amount after subtracting the sum of “PERF” and “VPBC.”).
With respect to claim 8, Colner further teaches the sequencing comprises stacking the one or more user-qualified compensation factors, wherein at least two user-qualified compensation factors in the one or more user-qualified compensation factors are overlapped (see Figure 7 and paragraph 0040 for In 706, dependencies among the plans are determined. For example, the compensation modeling system determines dependencies within the set of compensation assignment plans. In some embodiments, a first plan in the set of compensation assignment plans comprises a dependency on a second plan or multiple plans in the set of compensation assignment plans).
Claim 9 further recites alerting the user of unused user qualified compensation factors. Colner teaches qualified compensation factors on Figure 3 and paragraph 0023 for compensation factors column 302 are associated with compensation plans “PERF,” “STIP,” “SZF1,” “SFZ2,” “FCZ2,” and “BASE” of compensation plans column 304. Compensation factors “Job Profile—Sales Engineer,” “Gender—Male,” “Work Shift—Night,” “Time in Position—2 months,” “Contract Reason—Temp hire,” and “Unions—Active” of compensation factors column 302 are associated with compensation plans “VPBC,” “FCZ1. Colner is silent as to alerting the users about unused qualified compensation. Official notice is taken that it is and old known to alert the users when they are short for a benefit, for example mailing the users social security reports showing them how many years and quarters they need to receive social security benefits and the like. It will have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included, alerting the users about unused qualified compensation because such a modification would allow the users of Colner to be informed of any compensation factors missing to obtain their compensation.
With respect to claim 10, Colner further teaches wherein the plurality of usage configurations comprises a plurality of employer benefit policies (see TABLE-US-00002 for a plurality of Compensation Plan Types).
With respect to claim 11, Colner further teaches one or more user qualified compensation factors on Figure 3 and paragraph 0023 for compensation factors column 302 are associated with compensation plans “PERF,” “STIP,” “SZF1,” “SFZ2,” “FCZ2,” and “BASE” of compensation plans column 304. Compensation factors “Job Profile—Sales Engineer,” “Gender—Male,” “Work Shift—Night,” “Time in Position—2 months,” “Contract Reason—Temp hire,” and “Unions—Active” of compensation factors column 302 are associated with compensation plans “VPBC,” “FCZ1. Colner is silent as to visual demonstration comprises a graph. Official notice is taken that it is old and well known to use graphs to simplify data, identify trends and compare datasets, communicate information effectively and aid in decision making. Graphing the qualified compensation factors of Colner will simplify and aid in deciding between the compensation factors in Colner.
With respect to claim 12, Colner further teaches tracking, by a payment tracker, payments collected from the one or more user-qualified compensation factors (see he pay rate type for the Worker from table 00002).
With respect to claims 13-14, Colner further teaches comparing the payments collected from the one or more user-qualified compensation factors with a payment estimate of the one or more user-qualified compensation factors; comprising recalculating the payment estimate of at least one user-qualified compensation factor (see paragraph 0042 and Figure 7 for the original employee compensation model information and plan information comprises compensation model 208 and compensation plan information 206 of FIG. 2. In 904, a model for the new total compensation amount is calculated. For example, the compensation modeling system calculates a model based on the new provided total compensation amount. In 906, the compensation change model and the original employee compensation model are provided. For example, the compensation modeling system provides the compensation change model and the original employee compensation model to the client system, listing out the compensation plans and associated monetary amounts in both models. A user of the client system is able to compare the two models side by side and analyze how compensation plan allocations vary after the total compensation change.).
With respect to claims 15-16, Colner teaches further recite wherein the gathering includes a second priority and wherein the sequencing optimizes the one or more user-qualified compensation factors for the first priority before the second priority (see Figure 7 and paragraph 0040 for a first plan in the set of compensation assignment plans comprises a dependency on a second plan or multiple plans in the set of compensation assignment plans. In 708, a processing order is determined for the plans. For example, the compensation modeling system determines a processing order for the set of plans. In some embodiments, the processing order is determined based at least in part on plan type. In some embodiments, the processing order for the set of compensation assignment plans is based at least in part on plan dependencies. In various embodiments, a compensation modeling system groups plans by currency, frequency (e.g., monthly, annual, etc.), percentage or fixed amount plan, percentage basis, or any other appropriate plan type. For example, fixed amount plans are first in the processing order, followed by plans with dependencies on fixed amount plans only, and followed by plans depending on dependent plans).
Claims 17-19 further recite renewing one or more mathematical formulas, wherein the renewing is based in the benefit information, plurality of compliance requirements. Colner teaches benefit information and compliance requirements on Figure 3 and paragraph 0023. Conner is silent as to mathematical formulas, on the other hand, Jeong teaches on paragraph 0078 “mathematical formulas, logic or analytical models”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included in the benefit information and , plurality of compliance requirements of conner to use the mathematical formulas of Jeong in order to save time and reduce error in calculations.
With respect to claim 20, Colner teaches a database of established benefit scenarios (see paragraph 0034 for compensation scheme ). Colner is silent as to using validation of mathematical formulas. Jeong teaches on paragraph 0078 “mathematical formulas, logic or analytical models”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included in the established benefit scenarios of Colner, the use the mathematical formulas of Jeong in order to save time and reduce error in calculations.
With respect to claims 21-22, Colner further teaches wherein the instructions include one or more application steps, to be accomplished by the user, for the one or more user-qualified compensation factors that were sequenced; includes an order, wherein the order is based on the sequencing ( see Figure 7 and paragraph 0040 for the processing order is determined based at least in part on plan type. In some embodiments, the processing order for the set of compensation assignment plans is based at least in part on plan dependencies. In various embodiments, a compensation modeling system groups plans by currency, frequency (e.g., monthly, annual, etc.), percentage or fixed amount plan, percentage basis, or any other appropriate plan type. For example, fixed amount plans are first in the processing order, followed by plans with dependencies on fixed amount plans only, and followed by plans depending on dependent plans).
With respect to claims 23-24, Colner further teaches suggesting benefits, to the user, wherein the suggesting is based on the gathering; wherein the gathering includes a graphical user interface (GUI) (see paragraph 0017 for an interface to receive live transactional compensation data. The system additionally comprises a processor to determine a set of compensation assignment plans based at least in part on the live transactional compensation data, determine a compensation model based at least in part on the set of compensation assignment plans, and provide the compensation model).
With respect to claim 25, Colner teaches GUI on paragraph 0017. Colner is silent as to customizing the GUI, wherein the customizing is based on the usage configuration. Official Notice is taken that it is old and well known to use adaptive user interfaces (adaptive UI) to change automatically based on how a user behaves. Such as Netflix/Spotify interfaces shaped by behavior. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included, customizing the GUI, wherein the customizing is based on the usage configuration because such a modification would help increase the user’s satisfaction based on the GUI customization based on their preferences.
With respect to claim 26, Colner further teaches wherein the plurality of benefit information and the plurality of compliance requirements include one or more private employer benefit plans, one or more local benefit plans, one or more state benefit plans, one or more federal benefit plans, one or more union plans, or a combination thereof. (TABLE-US-00001).
With respect to claim 27, Colner further teaches wherein the first priority includes an income level, time duration, or a combination of user-qualified compensation factors ( see paragraph 0026 and example 300).
With respect to 29, Colner further teaches wherein the usage configuration within the plurality of usage configurations pertains to an employer or leave administrator (Figure 3 and paragraph 0023).
With respect to claim 30, Colner further teaches personal information that was gathered is identifiable information (PII) on Figure 3 and paragraph 0023. Colner is silent as to the personal information not being personally identifiable information (PII). Official Notice is taken that it is old and well known to use non-identifiable information (non-PII) so data cannot be used to directly identify a particular individual. It will be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included not using personally identifiable information (PII) because such a modification would allow to gather information that is not linked to a named user.
References of record but applied in the current rejections:
CN 101416451 A teaches the routing algorithm embodiments may need to ensure that the network link to transmit respective fixed traffic capacities of each of the arithmetic formula.
Article titled “Flex Plans on the Rise” teaches as employers looking for more ways to cut their overall benefit costs. Flexible benefit plans are becoming more and more popular and figuring out exactly how much money they need to contribute to their workers overall benefits.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6715. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays thru Thursdays 8:30-6:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/RAQUEL ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622