DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on
1/29/2026. In Applicant’s amendment, claims 1, 12, and 20 were amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments
Rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained. Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 35 USC 101 rebuttal arguments and amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 8-9 that the claim addresses specific technical problems in legacy staffing systems by improving how real-time data is processed and how actionable staffing modifications are implemented. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not provide a technical solution, nor is there a technical problem specified. The problem addressed is a business operations problem with regards to staffing. The claim applies the abstract idea to a computing environment to perform the mathematical calculations and to display the output. The claim merely automates staffing decisions by analyzing and displaying data.
Applicant argues on p. 9-10 that the claimed steps integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2, by imposing meaningful limits on how data is transformed and acted upon within the computing environment. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Here, the claimed additional elements such as a centralized server, a network interface, a graphical user interface, an end user processing device are merely used to perform their known functions (receiving data, performing calculations, displaying data/alerts). The alleged integration is an improvement to the management of personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people, and fundamental economic practice, rather than an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field. The claims do not recite an improvement to the function of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Using weather data may increase the accuracy of the forecast, but it just another input into the abstract forecasting model. This is an improvement to the result of the abstract idea. It does not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s prior art arguments and amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 10-12 that McNair does not disclose assigning a modifier to the forecasting based on localized weather conditions, which is the external data input that modifies the forecast prior to the alert generation. Applicant’s argument is moot in light of the newly cited portions of Handel teaching localized weather condition data used as an input for staffing resource prediction.
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 clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (method, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, system). 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) without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), Claims 1-10 are directed toward the statutory category of a process (reciting a “method”). Claims 12-19 are directed toward the statutory category of an article of manufacture (reciting a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”). Claim 20 is directed toward the statutory category of a machine (reciting a “system”).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, Claims 1, 12, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea by reciting providing a … that displays resource data for at least one business location at different times on … receiving transaction data from … storing an end user's preferences for a threshold deviation between the resource data and historical data for the at least one business location; providing a forecasting for staff members at the at least one business location and a time window defining a given time period in which staffing is required, the forecasting being based on a weighted and unweighted equation, the weight being assigned based off real time data or historical data; assigning a modifier to the forecasting based on localized weather conditions; calculating a net forecast based on an average of the weighted and unweighted equations; calculating an actual forecast based on an average of the net forecast and the historical data; generating a forecasting alert … in response to receiving information associated with external factor data, to increase or decrease staffing for the time window based on the threshold deviation exceeding the threshold deviation … (Example claim 1).
The claims are considered abstract because these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity like managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and a fundamental economic practice. The claims receive and analyze data for business locations to identify alert thresholds that have been met to trigger an alert to adjust staffing which is a business process related to managing relationships or transactions between people and a fundamental economic practice.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and the additional elements such as a graphical user interface (GUI), a centralized server via a network interface, an end user processing device, transmitting the alert to the end user processing device to increase or decrease staffing at the at least one business location for the time window, the alert including a graphical user interface element and a call to action to make a suggested modification to staffing needs and in response to user input within the graphical user interface element on the end user processing device, increasing or decreasing the staff members for the time window) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)).
Claim 3 includes sending the alert via email. Claim 4 includes sending the alert via SMS. Claim 5 includes sending the alert via telephonic message. Claim 6 includes sending the alert via an electronic data interface. Claims 7-10 further narrow the type of end user processing device. Claim 13 includes the GUI displayed in a web browser. Claim 14 includes the alert sent via email, SMS, or telephonic message.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements have been considered above in Step 2A Prong 2. The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” Symantec, “Performing repetitive calculations,” Flook, and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing steps to receive real-time and historical data, receive an alert threshold, analyzing the data against the threshold, generating and sending an alert.
By the above, the claimed computing “call[s] for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components' and display devices” [Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355] operating in a “normal, expected manner” [DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014)].
Conclusively, Applicant's invention is patent-ineligible. When viewed both individually and as a whole, Claims 1-20 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
McNair, US Patent No. 11062802 B1, hereinafter McNair, in view of
Handel et al US Publication No. 2016/0055523 A1, hereinafter Handel. As per,
Claims 1, 12, 20
McNair teaches
A method of providing predictive forecasting over a network to a remote subscriber computer, the method comprising: /
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored therein, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the processors to perform operations comprising: /
A system comprising: a memory; and one or more processors coupled to the memory, the one or more processors are configured to perform operations comprising: (McNair fig. 1B; 7:15-20 “Computer system 120 comprises one or more processors operable to receive instructions and process them accordingly”)
providing a graphical user interface (GUI) that displays resource data for at least one business location at different times on an end user processing device; (McNair 7:30-35“In an embodiment a user interface 142 presents an information display and a graphical user interface for a nursing administrator at a first location, e.g. a mobile location. The user interface 142 is enabled by a tablet computer running a staffing applet that runs as a time and attendance service 128”)
receiving transaction data from a centralized server via a network interface, (McNair 11:28-31 “Computer system 120 may be a distributed computing system, a data processing system, a centralized computing system, a single computer such as a desktop or laptop computer or a networked computing system;” 11:40-41 “At step 210, receive staffing and census time series for previous N shifts”)
the end user processing device storing an end user's preferences for a threshold deviation between the resource data and historical data for the at least one business location; (McNair 9:21-25 “In an embodiment, an upper limit and a lower limit is selected as a multiplicative constant number of standard deviations above and/or below an average value, to define a control region”)
providing a forecasting for staff members at the at least one business location and a time window defining a given time period in which staffing is required, the forecasting being based on a weighted and unweighted equation, the weight being assigned based off real time data or historical data; (McNair 7:42-66 “the user interface 142 presents information such as a menu of compute times for staffing needed for the next shift, e.g. 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, or 4 hours prior to the next shift. In an embodiment a selected compute time for staffing determines a fixed constant lead-time for all shifts … the lead time is estimated using a linear estimate that forms a weighted linear combination of lead-times needed in several prior instances;” 11:40-46 “At step 210, receive staffing and census time series for previous N shifts. In one embodiment, step 210 comprises receiving representative historical patient census data and nurse staffing data (e.g. previous 100 shifts for nursing unit X), and which may be received from EHR 160, patient acuity system 165, time/attendance system 163, or other record system (shown as operational data store 221).” Note the historical data in use with the model; 11:47-67; 12:1-45 noting the examples of weights based on historical data)
[…];
calculating a net forecast based on an average of the weighted and unweighted equations; (McNair 16:39-42 “SSL estimates are combined with acuity-based forecasts to yield a net staffing recommendation incorporating the safety-stock-over-leadtime labor increment over the baseline recommendation”)
calculating an actual forecast based on an average of the net forecast and the historical data; (McNair 8:65-67, 9:1-24 “an incremented baseline staffing level is computationally evaluated using one or more statistical process control (SPC) methods, such as X±2SD, cusum, and Shewhart-type multi-rule SPC. In an embodiment an SPC method sets one or more rules related to one or more metrics related to one or more limits above and/or below an average value. An SPC method uses these limits as process control limits, when these bounds are exceeded for a metric under certain conditions specified by a rule. For example, with a plus and minus two standard deviation limit, according to a first rule the appearance of two or more samples outside of this control region in a short period of time such as 5 samples indicates that the variance encountered has increased over that which had been historically experienced … Further, a cumulative sum of a statistic may be maintained as a metric that approximates an estimate of a mean value of a parameter. When this cumulative sum deviates from prior estimates by a threshold amount above or below, this too may be used as metric used in accordance with a rule as an indication that variation of the process has increased”)
generating a forecasting alert by the centralized server in response to receiving information associated with external factor data, to increase or decrease staffing for the time window based on the threshold deviation exceeding the threshold deviation; (McNair’s staffing solution is modeled as a resource in inventory supply chain problem and discusses the impact of price variations and supply shortages. See McNair 4:19-22, 55-58. Price variations are external factors. McNair 8:47-51 “In an embodiment a display message on user interface 142 informs the user that 2 additional non-scheduled nursing personnel will be needed for the upcoming shift, and a recommended action and a prompt are presented. A recommended action may include … a request notification to a temporary nursing agency.” A temporary nursing agency is external to the hospital and sets their own labor rates and is therefore external factor data; McNair 9:25-45 “One or more SPC rules, when satisfied, generate an alert to the process observer to inspect the process and to investigate for possible causes of increased variation. One or more rules may be used to prompt an indication to a user that the process is no longer in-control and stable. In an embodiment, a computer 120 such as a server computationally evaluates incremented baseline staffing level and/or one or more constituent parameters using an SPC method. When a predefined rule is evaluated and found to be true, server 120 running a time and attendance service at 128 sends a message to an administrator operating user interface 142 at a remote computer such as a mobile computer. In an embodiment, the message provides one or more actionable user interface elements as well as text such as “Alert-critical care nurse staffing algorithm as exceeded process control limits, click here for process details.” In an embodiment, when selected, the actionable user interface element presents the demand variance estimate, the supply variance estimate, the safety-stock-over-leadtime value, and/or a time series and rule details that indicated the process is out of control, and/or unstable”)
transmitting the alert to the end user processing device to increase or decrease staffing at the at least one business location for the time window, the alert including a graphical user interface element and a call to action to make a suggested modification to staffing needs; and (McNair 8:62-65 “In an embodiment, the number of additional staff requested is presented to a nursing staff administrator on user interface 142;” 8:51-57 “A recommended action may include a staff request notification of on-call staff, a request notification to a temporary nursing agency, and a pull-request, that requests non-critical nursing staff to suspend ordinary duties and to assist a critical care unit. In an embodiment, a nursing staff administrator selects the option resulting in the recommended action being carried out.”)
in response to user input within the graphical user interface element on the end user processing device, increasing or decreasing the staff members for the time window. (McNair 8:51-57 “A recommended action may include a staff request notification of on-call staff, a request notification to a temporary nursing agency, and a pull-request, that requests non-critical nursing staff to suspend ordinary duties and to assist a critical care unit. In an embodiment, a nursing staff administrator selects the option resulting in the recommended action being carried out.”)
McNair does not explicitly teach, Handel however in the analogous art of data collection teaches
assigning a modifier to the forecasting based on localized weather conditions; (Handel [0004] “the information collected from many travelers, and also information collected from airlines and weather observers, etc., can be used to forecast inventory requirements, such as … man power or staffing level requirements, to meet projected demands” note the weather input as a variable for the forecasting prediction; [0035] “resource requirements by … weather … may be collected by individual service providers and then pulled together for further analysis and refined prediction models, allowing more targeted resource predictions”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify McNair’s staffing evaluation to include forecast modification data based on localized weather conditions in view of Handel in an effort to meet projected demands (see Handel ¶ [0032] & MPEP 2143G).
Claim 2
McNair does not explicitly teach, Handel however in the analogous art of data collection teaches
wherein the external factor data includes data related to staffing needs of a category of business, and (Handel ¶ [0032] “the information collected from many travelers, and also information collected from airlines and weather observers, etc., can be used to forecast inventory requirements […] as well as man power or staffing level requirements” noting the real time collection of information from users and this information used to forecast staffing level requirements and the category of business being traveling).
wherein the company is within the category of business. (see Handel ¶ [0032] “the information collected from many travelers, and also information collected from airlines and weather observers, etc., can be used to forecast inventory requirements […] as well as man power or staffing level requirements” the airline representative of the company within the category of business).
The motivation/rationale to combine McNair with Handel persists.
Claim 3
McNair teaches
wherein the weight includes a modifier that increases the ability of a data point to impact the future needs analysis. (McNair 8:2-4 “In an embodiment the weights are chosen from an exponential decay of a chosen parameter over a moving window of recent samples.”)
Claim 4
McNair teaches
wherein the alert is distributed via SMS. (McNair 7:36-41 “Such a tablet computer is, for example, assigned to a nursing administrator for staffing supervision of an acute care unit, and manages a staffing notification system that sends out alerts by text message or email to notify each staff member selected that he or she is needed on an upcoming shift.”)
Claim 5
McNair teaches
wherein the alert is distributed via telephonic message. (McNair 7:36-41 “Such a tablet computer is, for example, assigned to a nursing administrator for staffing supervision of an acute care unit, and manages a staffing notification system that sends out alerts by text message or email to notify each staff member selected that he or she is needed on an upcoming shift.”)
Claim 6
McNair teaches
wherein the alert includes a call to action and in a machine readable format and is communicated via an electronic data interface. (McNair 7:36-41 “Such a tablet computer is, for example, assigned to a nursing administrator for staffing supervision of an acute care unit, and manages a staffing notification system that sends out alerts by text message or email to notify each staff member selected that he or she is needed on an upcoming shift.”)
Claim 7
McNair teaches
wherein the end user processing device is a physical revenue recording device. (McNair 7:33-36 “The user interface 142 is enabled by a tablet computer running a staffing applet that runs as a time and attendance service 128 on operating system 129”)
Claim 8
McNair teaches
wherein the end user processing device is a mobile computing device. (McNair 7:33-36 “The user interface 142 is enabled by a tablet computer running a staffing applet that runs as a time and attendance service 128 on operating system 129”)
Claim 9
McNair teaches
wherein the end user processing device is a desktop computer. (McNair 7:23-25 “For example, a portion of computing system 120 may be embodied on user/clinician interface 142. In one embodiment, system 120 comprises one or more computing devices, such as a server, desktop computer, laptop, or tablet, cloud-computing device or distributed computing architecture, a portable computing device such as a laptop, tablet, ultra-mobile P.C., or a mobile phone”)
Claim 10
McNair teaches
wherein the end user processing device is a business process management software. (McNair 6:29-33 “An embodiment of interface 142 takes the form of a user interface operated by a software application or set of applications on a client computing device such as a personal computer, laptop, smartphone, or tablet computing device”)
Claim 11
McNair teaches
wherein the alert is triggered in response to a user-defined threshold. (McNair 9:21-24 “In an embodiment, an upper limit and a lower limit is selected as a multiplicative constant number of standard deviations above and/or below an average value, to define a control region.”)
Claim 13
McNair teaches
wherein the GUI is displayed in a web browser. (McNair 6:60-63 “In an embodiment, interface 142 includes a Web-based application or set of applications usable to manage user services provided by an embodiment of the invention.”)
Claim 14
McNair teaches
wherein alert message is distributed via email, SMS, or telephonic message. (McNair 7:36-41 “Such a tablet computer is, for example, assigned to a nursing administrator for staffing supervision of an acute care unit, and manages a staffing notification system that sends out alerts by text message or email to notify each staff member selected that he or she is needed on an upcoming shift.” Note the alert distributed via email and text message)
Claim 15
McNair teaches
wherein the external factor data includes economic data related to staffing needs of a category of business. (McNair’s staffing solution is modeled as a resource in inventory supply chain problem and discusses the impact of price variations and supply shortages. See McNair 4:19-22, 55-58. Price variations are economic external factors. McNair 8:47-51 “In an embodiment a display message on user interface 142 informs the user that 2 additional non-scheduled nursing personnel will be needed for the upcoming shift, and a recommended action and a prompt are presented. A recommended action may include … a request notification to a temporary nursing agency.” Note the temporary nursing agency (external to the hospital) mapped to the economic data related to staffing needs of a healthcare unit)
Claim 16
McNair teaches
wherein the GUI includes an adjustable time window. (McNair 7:42-45 “the user interface 142 presents information such as a menu of compute times for staffing needed for the next shift, e.g. 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, or 4 hours prior to the next shift.” Note the adjustable time window)
Claim 17
McNair teaches
wherein the adjustable time window may be changed for an amount of minutes. (McNair 7:55-59 “if lead-time estimation determines that a lead-time of 47 minutes is needed for an upcoming shift, then the system automatically begins computing staffing level 48 minutes prior to a shift change” noting the adjustment by the minute)
Claim 18
McNair teaches
wherein the GUI includes a difference between the forecast and actual staff. (McNair 8:51-53, 62-64 “A recommended action may include a staff request notification of on-call staff, a request notification to a temporary nursing agency … the number of additional staff requested is presented to a nursing staff administrator on user interface 142.” Note the GUI presenting the number of staff requested in addition to the forecasted baseline staff (difference between the forecast and actual staff))
Claim 19
McNair teaches
wherein when an alert is transmitted to increase staff members, an alert is automatically transmitted directly to an employee designated to fill in on short notice. (McNair 8:51-52, 57-60 “A recommended action may include a staff request notification of on-call staff … In an embodiment such requests are not presented to an administrator prior to execution, but a recommended action is instead automatically taken” note the alert automatically sent directly to an on-call (designated) employee)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2013/0338920 A1; WO2010093464A2; Smith et al., Decision support tool for predicting aircraft arrival rates from weather forecasts, 2008.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MOHAMED EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-4:30PM.
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, PATRICIA MUNSON can be reached on (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MOHAMED N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624