DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 07/17/2026. Currently, claims 1-3, 7-16 and 18-20 are pending. Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18 and 20 have been amended. Claims 4-6 and 17 have been cancelled. No newly added claim(s).
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 1-3, 7-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method, system and computer program product for tracking and monitoring employee time attendance.
Exemplary claim 15 recites in part,
“receiving biometric data associated with the employee;
verifying an identity of the employee using the biometric data, wherein verifying the identity of the employee comprises:
comparing the biometric data with baseline biometric data representing the employee; and
determining that the biometric data matches the baseline biometric data within a threshold amount;
based on determining that the biometric data matches the baseline biometric data within a threshold amount, determining that at least one of an action or notification is associated with the employee by using the baseline biometric data to parse an employee database that stores both attendance tracking data and data associated with the action or notification; and
displaying the action or notification as part of a confirmation that the employee clocked in or clocked out”,
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring data, 2) comparing the acquired data with stored data, 3) validating based comparison based on define rule, and 4) retrieving and displaying a result (action or notification).
The above steps describe the process of tracking and monitoring employee time attendance. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (managing personal behavior or relationship or interaction between people) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationship or interaction between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements in the form of a “one or more processors” and “one or more storage devices” to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The additional elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. The recited “one or more processors” and “one or more storage devices” represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 15 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 20 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 15, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 7-14, 16, 18 and 19 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to 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 1-3, 7, 9, 10, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2023/0245068 (Wang), and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2013/0246114 (Gala).
Referring to claim 1, Wang discloses a method for providing actions or notifications to an employee clocking in or clocking out, the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, biometric data associated with the employee; [See paragraphs 0011, 0083, 0132, 0147, 0154, 0165, 0176]
verifying, by the one or more processors, an identity of the employee using the biometric data, [See paragraphs 0132, 0148, 0154, 0164-0166]
wherein verifying the identity of the employee comprises: comparing the biometric data with baseline biometric data representing the employee; and [See paragraphs 0132, 0148, 0154, 0164-0166]
displaying, by the one or more processors, the action or notification as part of a confirmation that the employee clocked in or clocked out. [See paragraphs 0057, 0148, 0161, 0162]
Wang does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
determining that the biometric data matches the baseline biometric data within a threshold amount; and
based on determining that the biometric data matches the baseline biometric data within a threshold amount, determining, by the one or more processors, that at least one of an action or notification is associated with the employee by using the baseline biometric data to parse an employee database that stores both attendance tracking data and data associated with the action or notification.
Gala teaches a method with the limitations:
determining that the biometric data matches the baseline biometric data within a threshold amount; and [See paragraphs 0031, 0047]
based on determining that the biometric data matches the baseline biometric data within a threshold amount, determining, by the one or more processors, that at least one of an action or notification is associated with the employee by using the baseline biometric data to parse an employee database that stores both attendance tracking data and data associated with the action or notification. [See paragraphs 0031, 0036, 0047, 0049]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Wang to have incorporated an employee time tracking feature as in Gala with the motivation of tracking and monitoring employee work attendance. [See Gala paragraph 0007; Wang paragraphs 0006, 0186]
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Wang and Gala discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the biometric data comprises at least one of ocular data, facial data, or fingerprint data. [See Wang paragraphs 0011, 0083, 0132, 0147, 0154, 0165, 0176]
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Wang and Gala discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, by the one or more processors, metadata comprising at least one of a timestamp or location for when or where the employee is clocking in or clocking out. [See Wang paragraphs 0016, 0132, 0148, 0154, 0161, 0164-0166, 0177]
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Wang and Gala discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining that at least one of an action or notification is associated with the employee further comprises searching the employee database for actions or notifications associated with the baseline biometric data that matched with the biometric data. [See Wang paragraphs 0057, 0132, 0148, 0154, 0161, 0162, 0164-0166]
Referring to claim 9, the combination of Wang and Gala discloses the method of claim 1, wherein verifying the identity of the employee comprises entering a timestamp when the identity was verified to represent a time the employee clocked in or clocked out. [See Wang paragraphs 0016, 0132, 0148, 0154, 0161, 0164-0166]
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Wang and Gala discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors, second biometric data associated with an individual; [See Wang paragraphs 0151-0157 – Each employee is associated with an account and/or device. Each employee’s biometric data is verified prior to or during a clock-in or clock-out process.]
comparing, by the one or more processors, the second biometric data with baseline biometric data; and [See Wang paragraphs 0151-0157 – Each employee is associated with an account and/or device. Each employee’s biometric data is verified prior to or during a clock-in or clock-out process.]
determining, by the one or more processors, that the second biometric data does not match the baseline biometric data within a threshold amount. [See Wang paragraphs 0151-0157 – Each employee is associated with an account and/or device. Each employee’s biometric data is verified prior to or during a clock-in or clock-out process.]
Referring to claim 12, the combination of Wang and Gala discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the actions or notifications comprise at least one of documents to sign, surveys to complete, training sessions or compliance attestation to schedule or complete, engagement actions to perform, communications to transmit, recognition events, performance management processes, announcement notifications, birthday notifications, or work anniversary notifications. [See Wang paragraphs 0161, 0162]
Referring to claim 13, the combination of Wang and Gala discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the actions or notifications comprise a detection of fraudulent behaviors with respect to the employee clocking in or clocking out. [See Wang paragraphs 0140, 0150-0157]
Referring to claim 14, the combination of Wang and Gala discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, third biometric data associated with a second employee; [See Wang paragraphs 0151-0157]
verifying, by the one or more processors, an identity of the second employee using the third biometric data; [See Wang paragraphs 0016, 0132, 0148, 0154, 0161, 0164-0166]
determining, by the one or more processors, there are no actions or notifications associated with the second employee based on the third biometric data; and [See Wang paragraph 0162 – Notifications may not be sent to the employee but to other employees.]
displaying, by the one or more processors, a confirmation that the second employee clocked in or clocked out. [See Wang paragraphs 0057, 0132, 0148, 0154, 0161, 0162, 0164-0166]
Referring to claims 15, 16, 18 and 19, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 1, 2, 7 and 12, and therefore are rejected based on same rationale.
Referring to claim 20, it recites similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore is rejected based on same rationale.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Gala as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2021/0192419 (Von Troll et al. – hereinafter Von Troll).
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Wang and Gala discloses the method of claim 1 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the baseline biometric data comprises historical biometric data associated with the employee.
Von Troll teaches a method with the limitation: wherein the baseline biometric data comprises historical biometric data associated with the employee. [See Von Troll paragraphs 0031, 0034-0036, 0039, 0041]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of the combined teachings of Wang and Gala to have incorporated an employee time tracking feature as in Von Troll with the motivation of tracking and monitoring employee work attendance. [See Von Troll paragraph 0025; Wang paragraphs 0006, 0186]
Referring to claim 11, the combination of Wang, Gala and Von Troll discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising displaying, by the one or more processors, an error message that an identity of the individual cannot be verified. [See Von Troll paragraph 0041]
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations of the claimed invention describe the steps of 1) collecting data, 2) comparing the collected data with stored data, 3) validating based comparison based on define rule, and 4) retrieving and displaying a result (action or notification). The steps describe the process of tracking and monitoring employee time attendance. The limitations, cover managing personal behavior or relationship or interaction between people, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The recited features of “comparing the biometric data with baseline biometric data representing the employee; and determining the biometric data matches the baseline biometric data within a threshold amount" and "based on determining the biometric data matches the baseline biometric data within a threshold amount, determining, by the one or more processors, that at least one of an action or notification is associated with the employee by using the baseline biometric data to parse an employee database that stores both attendance tracking data and data associated with the action or notification" simply compares collected and stored data (biometric information) based on defined rule(s), and retrieves data (notification or action) based on a match.
The claimed invention uses generic computer-related elements to collect data, analyze the collected data (compare with stored data), and retrieve and display result. The claimed invention simply uses computer technology to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The claims fail to improve the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
102/103 Rejection(s)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights