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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method, system and computer program product for 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;
determining…that at least one of an action or notification is associated with the employee based on the biometric data; and
outputting…the action or notification.”
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring data, 2) comparing the acquired data with stored data, and 3) determining and displaying a result.
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 2-14 and 16-19 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2023/0245068 (Wang).
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]
determining, by the one or more processors, that at least one of an action or notification is associated with the employee based on the biometric data; and [See paragraphs 0057, 0148, 0161, 0162]
outputting, by the one or more processors, the action or notification. [See paragraphs 0161, 0162]
Referring to claim 2, Wang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the biometric data comprises at least one of ocular data, facial data, or fingerprint data. [See paragraphs 0011, 0083, 0132, 0147, 0154, 0165, 0176]
Referring to claim 3, Wang 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 paragraphs 0016, 0132, 0148, 0154, 0161, 0164-0166, 0177]
Referring to claim 4, Wang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the action or notification is output as part of a confirmation that the employee clocked in or clocked out. [See paragraphs 0161, 0162]
Referring to claim 5, Wang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein verifying the identity of the employee comprises comparing the biometric data with baseline data representing the employee. [See paragraphs 0132, 0148, 0154, 0164-0166]
Referring to claim 7, Wang discloses the method of claim 5, wherein determining that at least one of an action or notification is associated with the employee further comprises searching an employee database for actions or notifications associated with the baseline data that matched with the biometric data. [See paragraphs 0057, 0132, 0148, 0154, 0161, 0162, 0164-0166]
Referring to claim 9, Wang 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 paragraphs 0016, 0132, 0148, 0154, 0161, 0164-0166]
Referring to claim 10, Wang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors, second biometric data associated with an individual; [See 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 data; and [See 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 data within a threshold amount. [See 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, Wang 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 paragraphs 0161, 0162]
Referring to claim 13, Wang 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 paragraphs 0140, 0150-0157]
Referring to claim 14, Wang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, third biometric data associated with a second employee; [See paragraphs 0151-0157]
verifying, by the one or more processors, an identity of the second employee using the third biometric data; [See 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 paragraph 0162 – Notifications may not be sent to the employee but to other employees.]
outputting, by the one or more processors, a confirmation that the second employee clocked in or clocked out. [See 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.
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 6, 8, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claims 5 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 6, Wang discloses the method of claim 5 above. Wang does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein verifying the identity of the employee comprises determining biometric data matches the baseline data within a threshold amount.
Von Troll teaches a method with the limitation: wherein verifying the identity of the employee comprises determining biometric data matches the baseline data within a threshold amount. [See 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 Wang 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 8, the combination of Wang and Von Troll discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the baseline data comprises historical biometric data associated with the employee. [See Von Troll paragraphs 0031, 0034-0036, 0039, 0041]
Referring to claim 11, the combination of Wang and Von Troll discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising outputting, by the one or more processors, an error message that an identity of the individual cannot be verified. [See Von Troll paragraph 0041]
Referring to claim 17, it recites similar limitations as set forth in claim 6, and therefore is rejected based on same rationale.
Conclusion
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