DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Prosecutorial Standing
2. This communication is in response to the Application filed on
02.04.2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application. Claims
1-20 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course,
and will be presented for examination, as detailed below.
Oath/Declaration
3. The Applicants’ oath/declaration has been reviewed by the Examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) dated 02.04.2025 is acknowledged by the Examiner. The cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed, signed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Priority / Filing Date
5. Applicant’s claim for priority of US Application filed 01.09.2009 is acknowledged. The Examiner takes the US Application date of 01.09.2009 into consideration.
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to HYPERLINK "http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp" www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,068,864. The claims are directed to the same invention.
The mapping of claim 1 of the immediate application to claim 1 of the patent follows:
Immediate Application
Patent No.: 11,068,864
Claim 1: A method comprising: establishing a first communication link to a mobile device, including authenticating a user; interfacing a central processor with a local service processor of an employer device connected to an employer database, including establishing a second communication link to the employer device; updating a central database based on records data associated with the user retrieved from the employer database for a predetermined time period; and transmitting, to the employer device, a communication associated with a request from the mobile device to update an account, wherein the communication causes an update to the records data in the employer database.
Claim 1: A method …, the method comprising: establishing a first communication link to an employee mobile device, …..; interfacing the central office processor with a local service processor of an employer device connected to an employer database, including establishing, using at least a portion of employee information associated with the employee, a second communication link to the employer device; …., …..; updating the central office database based on the retrieved employee records data; ….. ; …..; updating the central office database based on the request to update the employee account; and transmitting, to the employer device, at predetermined intervals, a communication associated with the request to update the employee account, wherein the communication causes an update to the employee records data in the employer database.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,615,385. The claims are directed to the same invention.
The mapping of claim 1 of the immediate application to claim 1 of the patent follows:
Immediate Application
Patent No.: 11,615,385
Claim 1: A method comprising: establishing a first communication link to a mobile device, including authenticating a user; interfacing a central processor with a local service processor of an employer device connected to an employer database, including establishing a second communication link to the employer device; updating a central database based on records data associated with the user retrieved from the employer database for a predetermined time period; and transmitting, to the employer device, a communication associated with a request from the mobile device to update an account, wherein the communication causes an update to the records data in the employer database.
Claim 1: A method …., the method comprising: establishing a first communication link to an employee mobile device, …; interfacing the central office processor with a local service processor of an employer device connected to an employer database, ….., a second communication link to the employer device; ….; ….; updating the central office database based on the request to update the employee account; and transmitting, to the employer device, at predetermined intervals, a communication associated with the request to update the employee account, wherein the communication causes an update to the employee records data in the employer database.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 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., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system for providing access to system-subscribing employees of their accrued and unpaid earnings.
Independent claim 1 has been identified as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and updating financial or employment related account information based on employment records. Specifically, the method comprising the steps of:
establishing communication link, including authenticating a user;
retrieving records data for a predetermined time period from an employer database;
updating a central database based on the retrieved data; and
transmitting a communication to update an account.
These steps constitute a process of gathering data about a customer’s order and location, calculating when the customer will arrive, and using that calculation to time food preparation and update a status display. This is a fundamental economic practice of account administration, payroll processing, and data reconciliation.
These limitations fall within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity/fundamental economic practice: the step of updating and reconciling account data using records from a third-party database is a fundamental economic practice.
These limitations also fall within the category of mental process/collecting, analyzing and storing information. The claim recites steps that a human could perform in the mind or with a pen and paper: observing records data, analyzing it for a time period, and updating a record. The recitation of updating a central database based on records data associated with the user retrieved from the employer database for a predetermined time period, is precisely the type of collecting information, and displaying/storing certain results of that analysis, which have been identified as an abstract idea. The claim does not recite any specific algorithm or formula. The steps of retrieving “records data associated with the user” for a predetermined “time period” and “updating a central database” could be performed mentally by an HR clerk: look up an employee file, copy hours for last 2 weeks, write into central ledger, and send a memo to payroll to update.
Further, evidence is cited to: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: a first and a second communication link, a mobile device, a central processor, a local service processor, and an employer device connected to an employer database. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to generic computer components used as tools to perform the abstract idea. A “a mobile device, a central processor, a local service processor, and an employer device” are generic computer. Under Alice, “mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”. Such components are generic computer elements performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions.
Accordingly, these additional elements and components, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality, and do not improve the functioning of a computer itself or any other technology or technical filed. The claim does not recite, any improvement to mobile device authentication technology, processor operation, database architecture, or network communication protocol. Instead, the additional elements and components merely implement the abstract idea in a generic and conventional environment, and amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, such as retrieving, updating, and transmitting. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The claim does not include components that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements, considered individually and in combination, include: a generic central or a generic local service processor, performing routine data reception and processing, and conventional components for providing good and services based on accrued unpaid earnings (e.g., update an account). The elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of food service and computer implementation.
Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., systems providing goods and services based on accrued but unpaid earnings) without significantly more. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Furthermore, claims 2-10 and 12-20 define the same that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 10, are considered to be part of the abstract idea above and merely act to further limit it. In the dependent claims, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer functioning in a standard mode of operation or matters that are routine and conventional in the field. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Additionally, claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The PTO-1449 form has been reviewed and considered.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached on 517-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
12. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Garcia Ade/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights