DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-10 as originally filed are currently pending and are considered below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 7, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 recite subject matter allowable over the prior art of record.
Double Patenting
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,954, hereinafter ‘954.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both cases are concerned with internal management regarding payroll procedures for a labor force.
As per Claim 1, ‘954 discusses a computer system for payroll management comprising one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, and one or more computer-readable storage devices, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable storage devices for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories,
wherein the stored program instructions cause the one or more processors to: correlate, via the one or more processors,
each of a plurality of employees to one of a plurality of scheduled positions; correlate, via the one or more processors,
each of the plurality of scheduled positions to a payroll type;
determine, via the one or more processors, a scheduled start time, a scheduled end time, a scheduled location-in location, and a scheduled location-out location based on a work schedule for each of the plurality of employees,
wherein the work schedule for each of the plurality of employees is stored in the one or more computer-readable storage devices; receive, via an employee device, a first scan time and a clock-in time,
wherein the employee device is in electronic communication with at least the one or more computer-readable memories,
wherein the first scan time is transmitted from the employee device to at least the one or more computer-readable memories,
wherein the first scan time is generated based on electronic scanning of a first package of a plurality of packages, and
wherein the clock-in time is generated based on a clock-in input via the employee device; determine, via the one or more processors, an actual clock-in location based on a clock-in geolocation generated by the employee device upon the generation of the clock-in input; receive, via the employee device, a last scan time and a clock-out time,
wherein the last scan time is transmitted from the employee device to at least the one or more computer-readable memories,
wherein the last scan time is generated based on electronic scanning of a last package of the plurality of packages, and wherein the clock-out time is generated based on a clock-out input via the employee device;
determine, via the one or more processors, an actual clock-out location based on a clock- out geolocation generated by the employee device upon the generation of the clock-out input;
determine, via the one or more processors, a location-in distance based on the actual clock-in location and the scheduled location-in location; and
determine, via the one or more processors, a location-out distance based on the actual clock-out location and the scheduled location-out location. (Claim 1)
Claim 1 of the instant application teaches a system for payroll management. Claim 1 of the instant application fails to disclose a plurality of packages to be delivered and receiving from an employee device, geolocation data comprising an actual path taken between the actual clock-in location and the actual clock-out location by each employee of the plurality of employees.
Claim 1 of the issued patent recites a computer system for payroll management for a plurality of packages to be delivered and receiving from an employee device, geolocation data comprising an actual path taken between the actual clock-in location and the actual clock-out location by each employee of the plurality of employees.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the system for payroll management recited in claim 1 of the instant application to include the ability to manage payroll for employees having a plurality of packages to be delivered and receiving from an employee device, geolocation data comprising an actual path taken between the actual clock-in location and the actual clock-out location by each employee of the plurality of employees.
As per Claim 2, ‘954 discusses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the stored program instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
compare, via the one or more processors, the location-in distance to a location-in distance threshold; and
compare, via the one or more processors, the location-out distance to a location-out distance threshold. (Claim 2)
As per Claim 3, ‘954 discusses the computer system of claim 2, wherein the stored program instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
assign, via the one or more processors, one of a plurality of payroll statuses to each of the plurality of employees. (Claim 3)
As per Claim 4, ‘954 discusses the computer system of claim 3, wherein the plurality of payroll statuses comprises an automatically approved status, an approved status, a declined status, and an exception status. (Claim 4)
As per Claim 5, ‘954 discusses the computer system of claim 4, wherein the stored program instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
generate, via the one or more processors, and display, via one or more displays, a payroll management module interface comprising a table populated by at least the scheduled start time, the first scan time, the clock-in time, the scheduled end time, the last scan time, the clock-out time, and the status of each of the plurality of employees. (Claim 5)
As per Claim 6, ‘954 discusses the computer system of claim 5, wherein the payroll management module interface comprises an edit functionality configured to enable an administrator to modify at least the status of each of the plurality of employees. (Claim 6)
As per Claim 7, ‘954 discusses the computer system of claim 5, wherein the payroll management module interface comprises a sort functionality configured to enable an administrator to sort by the payroll type. (Claim 7)
As per Claim 8, ‘954 discusses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the stored program instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
generate, if, the clock-in input is not generated and the scheduled start time is later than the first scan time, an approved clock-in time,
wherein the approved clock-in time is a preparation time less than the first scan time. (Claim 8)
As per Claim 9, ‘954 discusses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the stored program instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
import, via the one or more processors, a tip spreadsheet to the one or more computer- readable storage devices,
wherein the tip spreadsheet comprises a plurality of tips,
wherein each of the plurality of the tips corresponds to a pay week and one of the plurality of employees;
determine, via the one or more processors, whether one or more of the plurality of tips was transmitted after a tip deadline and before a pay weekend time; and
aggregate, via the one or more processors, the one or more of the plurality of tips that were transmitted after the tip deadline and before the pay weekend time to a tip disbursement for each of the plurality of employees. (Claim 9)
As per Claim 10, ‘954 discusses the computer system of claim 9, wherein the stored program instructions further cause the one or more processors to: generate, via the one or more processors, and display, via one or more displays, a tips interface,
wherein the tips interface comprises a tip visualization based on the plurality of tips for one of the plurality of employees. (Claim 10)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Frantz et al., U.S. Patent 11,900,285 discusses a specialized resource computation service engine electronically and automatically provides, in a timely and efficient manner, accurate and reliable tracking of mobile employees across domains and correctly apportions, calculates, and remits selected resources to those domains for employee compensation (including non-cash compensation) earned over a period of time according to the various different rules in various different domains. The system aggregates data indicative of different geographical locations and durations spent in the geographical locations by an employee over a time period, apportions respective amounts of time to each domain based on the aggregated data and computes, for the employee, a respective selected resource for each domain based on the respective amounts of time apportioned to each domain. Abstract
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHFORD S HAYLES whose telephone number is (571)270-5106. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM with Flex.
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.
/ASHFORD S HAYLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights