DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 4/25/2025, Applicant, on 7/25/2025, amended Claims 1 and 11. Claims 1-4, 6, 9-14, 16, and 19-20 are pending in this action, have been considered in full, and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 35 USC §112(b) – The rejection has been removed in light of Applicant’s amendments. Examiner notes a new 35 USC §112(b) rejection is below as necessitated by the amended limitations.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant states the entirety of the amend claims, that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as Applicant recites the amended limitations such as “a corresponding data is shared between two or more technician allocation systems by accessing a cloud comprising the telecommunication network, wherein the matching comprises assigning a matching score per feature of the features, and wherein the allocating comprises selecting the FTs with a highest weighted average matching score of the features among all the different technician allocation systems and training the less experienced FTs on a subset of features” stating that a human mind cannot perform these. Examiner disagrees as there are multiple abstract ideas as per the rejection, that of a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity, Mathematical Relationship/Concept, and a Mental Process, and this is a mere allegation of eligibility under 101. Assigning a matching score per feature of features, and allocating a FT, field technician, by selecting the FT with the highest score can be done in the mind by any employer, manager, supervisor who assigns a score of 8 of 10 for Bob the technician based on what he observes, and then uses analyzation of his score vs other technicians to assign him to a task or because his score is the highest in the area. This is utilization of current technologies to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, such as by using a Cloud computing system with a telecommunications network, a processor, etc. which is Applying It similar to that of Alice, and thus neither a practical application nor significantly more. Further, scheduling of field technicians to workers is clearly an abstract idea, for Managing Human Activity, where the whole of any improvement is contained within the abstraction. There is no improvement to the additional elements such as the cloud, networks, processor, memory, database, etc. and there is nothing in the specification that would state that anything other than a generic computer is being utilized. Again, this is utilization of current technologies to perform the abstract limitations of the claims with no improvement to any technology as above.
Applicant asserts that the claims provided a concrete solution to a problem, does not monopolize every potential solution to the problem, and states the claimed application is a practical implementation by reciting the use of a processor, technician allocation system, querying a workforce database, and the language of the claims. Applicant also states that this is necessary to allocate a hopefully competent person to execute the work order, through shared systems, and that this allocation is done without human involvement, and thus is an improvement to the system. Applicant states that this improves the accuracy of selecting a more relevant and more trained Field Technician (FT). Applicant also states that using a cloud and continuously updating and optimizing a skill database is an improvement and practically integrated. Examiner disagrees as any improvement would be in the abstraction, as allocating a competent person more accurately is Managing Human Activity. Further, utilizing a cloud computing system and network does not make the claim eligible, as this is utilizing current technologies to perform the abstract limitations of the Claims. There is no inventive concept.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-14, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations of “… as a basis for updating FT experience score of the at least one allocated FT” in amended limitation. This is unclear as there is “an FT experience score for each FT candidate with respect to the identified…” above, and is this a new score or the same score as above. For examination purposes this will be taken as “… for updating THE FT experience score…”. Therefore, the independent Claims are rejected. The dependent Claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims and thus are similarly rejected.
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.
Alice – Claims 1-4, 6, 9-14, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 11 directed to the limitations for identifying features of a received new work order (WO), wherein in an event of execution of the WO, information of expertise associated with the FT is stored in the database, the FT is linked to specific relevant types of WO (Collecting and Analyzing the Information, an observation and evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Beings, i.e. Managing Field Technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), obtaining similarity scores for the identified features based on querying the identified features of the new WO to identify feature of previously executed old WOs, wherein the similarity scores are determined based on how similar the identified features of the new WO are to the identified features of the previously executed old WOs, the old WOs having at least one of the identified features of the new WO (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Beings, i.e. Managing Field Technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), obtaining for a set of FT candidates, an FT experience score for each FT candidate with respect to the identified features of the new WO(Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Beings, i.e. Managing Field Technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), matching the FT candidates with the features for the new WO based on the obtained FT experience scores and the similarity scores (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Beings, i.e. Managing Field Technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), allocating at least one of the FTs for executing the new WO on said equipment, based on the matching, wherein the matching comprises assigning a matching score per feature of the features, and wherein the allocating comprises selecting the FTs with a highest weighted average matching score of the features (Transmitting the Information, a judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Beings, i.e. Managing Field Technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity; and a Mathematical Concept/Formula), and responsive to the allocation of at least one of the FTs for executing the new WO, store the identified features of the new WO with a logical association to information identifying the at least one of the FTs allocated for executing the new WO (Storing/Transmitting the Information, a judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Beings, i.e. Managing Field Technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), after execution of the new WO by the at least one allocated FT, storing information related to the execution as a bases for updating FT experience score of the at least one allocated FT (Storing/Transmitting the Information, a judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Beings, i.e. Managing Field Technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and training less experienced FTs on a subset of features (Transmitting the Information, a judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Beings, i.e. Managing Field Technicians; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of organizing and tracking information for making a decision using a prediction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting to be performed by a technician allocation system and a cloud comprising a telecommunication network wherein corresponding data is shared between two or more technician allocation systems by accessing a cloud comprising the telecommunication network, a processor, equipment in a telecommunications network, work force database in a memory, database, corresponding data is shared between two or more technician allocation systems by accessing a cloud comprising the telecommunication network, and a communication circuit, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Organizing and Tracking information for Managing Human Beings, i.e. Managing Field Technicians. For example, obtaining an experience score for each field technician candidate with respect to identified features encompasses a manager or supervisor scoring technicians based on attributes, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for organizing and tracking information for a Fundamental Economic Process, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” as well as a “Mathematical Concept/Relationship”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The system, processor, cloud, telecommunication network, work force database, memory, communication circuit, and network are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving, storing, and transmission steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
[The technician allocating system 110 is shown to comprise a processor "P", a memory "M" and a communication circuit "C" with suitable equipment for transmitting and receiving information and messages in the manner
described herein.”
Which states that any type of computer can be used, which has a processor and memory, such as any personal computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, etc., to perform the abstract limitations, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving, storing, and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the system, telecommunication network, equipment, database, etc., nor the receiving and transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4, 6, 9-10, 12-14, 16, and 19-20 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with the additional elements of a database which is highly generic when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-14, 16, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection and any other rejections.
The closest prior art of record are Gatti (U.S. Publication No. 2013/011,1488), Sahni (U.S. Publication No. 2020/016,0252), and Singi (U.S. Publication No. 2018/026,0314). Gatti, a system and method for task assignment using ranking support vector machines, teaches a method performed by a processor of technician allocation system for allocating a field technician (FT) which technician allocation system operates in a telecommunication network, identifying features of a received new work order, WO, to be executed on equipment in the telecommunication network, obtaining similarity scores for the identified features based on querying a work force database in a memory through a communication circuit using the identified features of the new WO to identify features of previously executed old WOs stored in the work force database, wherein the similarity scores are determined based on how similar the identified features of the new WO are to the identified features of the previously executed old WOs, the old WOs having at least one of the identified features of the new WO, obtaining for a set of FT candidates, an FT experience score for each FT candidate with respect to the identified features of the new WO, matching the FT candidates with the features for the new WO based on the obtained FT experience scores and the similarity scores, allocating at least one of the FTs for executing the new WO on said equipment, based on the matching, wherein a corresponding data is shared between two or more technician allocation systems by accessing the telecommunication network, and responsive to the allocation of at least one of the FTs for executing the new WO, as well as accessing the work force database in the memory through the communication circuit as above, and storing information, which would be features of completed tasks, which is a new WO being completed and then becomes an old WO, and linking the tasks where the history database stores completed tasks and requested tasks, it does not explicitly state a logical association between the technician and the Work Order or a cloud computing system. Sahni, a method and system for providing a multi-dimensional human resource allocation adviser, teaches storing using a communicative device coupled to a server task information and tasks with a technician, use of a weighted average for the assignment of tasks to workers using scores as well as using a cloud tenant architecture and multiple networks, but it does not teach the formula for average matching score. Singi, a system and method for smart advisory for distributed and composite testing teams based on production data and analytics, teaches storing communication information, various software models, formulas and algorithms for available resource distribution, and determining a scheduled weight associated with a task, but it does not teach the specific claimed formula for average matching score. None of the above prior art explicitly teaches a highest weighted average matching score of the features, along with the other limitations, which Applicant points out in the Remarks of 8/23/2024 on pgs. 6 and 7, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1-4, 6, 9-14, 16, and 19-20 are allowable over the prior art of record, and are objected to as provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200210964 A1
Monovich; Amit et al.
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR OFFERRING SERVICE TIMES BASED ON SYSTEM CONSIDERATION
US 20200160252 A1
Sahni; Praveen et al.
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL HUMAN RESOURCE ALLOCATION ADVISER
US 20180260314 A1
Singi; Kapil et al.
SMART ADVISORY FOR DISTRIBUTED AND COMPOSITE TESTING TEAMS BASED ON PRODUCTION DATA AND ANALYTICS
US 20130111488 A1
Gatti; Maira Athanazio de Cerqueira et al.
TASK ASSIGNMENT USING RANKING SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINES
US 20040111311 A1
Ingman, Robert Mitchell et al.
Turfs and skills for multiple technicians
US 20220067551 A1
Wei; Daowen et al.
NEXT ACTION RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM
US 20200210931 A1
Idan; Sassi
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SCHEDULING TASKS
US 20190114593 A1
CHAMPANERIA; Paul
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MANAGING, MATCHING, AND SOURCING EMPLOYMENT CANDIDATES IN A RECRUITMENT CAMPAIGN
US 20160182558 A1
Tripp; Omer
Auto-tuning program analysis tools using machine learning
US 20090240549 A1
Slawson; Dean A. et al.
RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM FOR A TASK BROKERAGE SYSTEM
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 JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
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.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683 8/11/2025
Prosecution Insights