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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, and 19-21 of the “RESPONSE TO NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION” of 07 March 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “Response”).
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 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection. The rationales are based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106.
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) Referring to the pending claims, the “method” of claims 1-5 and 19 constitutes a process under 35 USC 101, the “non-transitory computer readable medium” of claims 7-11 and 20 constitutes a manufacture under the statute, and the “device” of claims 13-17 and 21 constitutes a machine under the statute. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, and 19-21 meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The claims, however, fail to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Using independent claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“A method for ... filling of declined partial worker shifts and customized ... calendaring and partial shift scheduling, the method ... comprising: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... sending ... a first shift request ... comprising a shift indicator for display, wherein the shift indicator graphically represents a shift duration of a shift and comprises a first end associated with a start of the shift and a second end associated with an end of the shift; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... in response to an ... shift fill request received ..., associated with a first portion of the shift, and triggered by a first acceptance of a second portion of the shift indicated by a first user ... via a first manipulation of the shift indicator to visually indicate on the shift indicator the second portion of the shift: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... ranking workers identified as eligible to work the first portion of the shift based on stored personnel data for the workers; and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... sending ... to ... a highest ranked one of the workers, a second shift request comprising ... the manipulated shift indicator; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... receiving ... a second acceptance of the first portion of the shift, wherein the second acceptance is indicated by a second user ... via a second manipulation of the shift indicator to visually indicate the second acceptance of the first portion of the shift; and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... outputting ... for display and in response to a selection received ... of a day or time duration that encompasses the shift, ... the shift indicator graphically reflecting the first and second acceptances of the first and second portions of the shift.” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
The above-listed limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as: fundamental economic principles or practices, including resource scheduling; commercial interactions, including employee scheduling; and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, in association with scheduling employees for shifts, which fall under the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Limitations of the claim also can be characterized as: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (e.g., the recited “receiving” limitation), and evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion (e.g., the recited “sending,” “ranking,” and “outputting” steps), which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) Continuing to use independent claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following additional element limitations:
The claimed “filling” is “automated” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “calendaring” is “electronic” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “method” is “implemented by one or more shift scheduling computing systems” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “sending” is “to a first user device via one or more communication networks” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “first shift request” includes “a first link to a customized and interactive schedule calendar graphical user interface (GUI)” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “shift fill request” is “automatic” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “received” is “from the first user device via the communication networks” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “first user” is associated with “the first user device” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “sending” is “via the communication networks” and “to a second user device” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “second shift request” includes “a second link to the customized and interactive schedule calendar GUI” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “receiving” is “from the second user device and via the communication networks” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “second user” is associated with “the second user device” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “outputting” is “to a third user device via the communication networks” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “selection” is received “from the third user device” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “outputting” is of “the customized and interactive schedule calendar GUI” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The above-listed additional element limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, mere automation of manual processes, instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); mere data gathering in the form of obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify transactions and consulting and updating an activity log, and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated in the form of selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in an environment, for collection, analysis, and display, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, language specifying that the process steps of virus screening were used within a telephone network or the Internet, because limiting the use of the process to these technological environments did not provide meaningful limits on the claim, and language specifying that the abstract idea of budgeting was to be implemented using a "communication medium" that broadly included the Internet and telephone networks, because this limitation merely limited the use of the exception to a particular technological environment, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, independent claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. Further, claim 1 also fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B because at least some of the additional elements are analogous to: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting.
Regarding pending claims 2-5 and 19, the claims depend from independent claim 1, and expand upon limitations introduced by claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. For example, the dependent claims recite abstract idea elements similar to the abstract idea elements of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “deleting ... after completion of the shift” of claim 4, and the “wherein the shift indicator comprises a linear progress bar” of claim 19). The dependent claims recite further additional elements that are similar to the additional elements of claim 1, that fail to warrant eligibility for the same reasons as the additional elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “further comprising integrating the customized and interactive schedule calendar GUI with a schedule management application interface to enable data transfer between the customized and interactive schedule calendar GUI and the schedule management application interface” of claim 2, the “further comprising providing the customized and interactive schedule calendar graphical interface integrated with the schedule management application interface” of claim 3, the “customized and interactive schedule calendar GUI” of claim 4, and the “further comprising generating the customized and interactive schedule calendar GUI output to the third user device based on one or more of a type of the third user device or one or more technical configurations of the third user device” of claim 5). Accordingly, claims 2-5 and 19 also are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding pending claims 7-11 and 20, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-5 and 19, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1-5 and 19. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1-5 and 19 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 7-11 and 20. Limitations recited by claims 7-11 and 20 that do not have a counterpart in claims 1-5 and 19, such as the recited computer hardware limitations in the preamble of independent claim 7, fail to warrant a finding of eligibility, because such limitations amount to additional elements that fail to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B, for the same reasons as the additional elements of claims 1-5 and 19. Claims 7-11 and 20 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding pending claims 13-17 and 21, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-5, 7-11, 19, and 20, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1-5, 7-11, 19, and 20. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1-5, 7-11, 19, and 20 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 13-17 and 21. Claims 13-27 and 21 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over When I Work. “Scheduler Reference Guide.” When I Work Help Center, 22 October 2021 (last accessed on 20 August 2024 via The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20211022142855/https://help.wheniwork.com/articles/scheduler-reference-guide-computer/) (hereinafter referred to as “WIW Scheduler Reference Guide”), in view of When I Work. “Split Shifts.” When I Work Help Center, 31 July 2021 (last accessed on 20 August 2024 via The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20210731031959/https://help.wheniwork.com/articles/split-shifts-computer/) (hereinafter referred to as “WIW Split Shifts”), further in view of When I Work. “Viewing Your Personal Schedule.” When I Work Help Center, 23 October 2021 (last accessed on 24 September 2025 via The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20211023035749/https://help.wheniwork.com/articles/viewing-your-personal-schedule-computer/) (hereinafter referred to as “WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule”), and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0158548 A1 to Taheri et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Taheri”).
Regarding independent claim 1, WIW Scheduler Reference Guide discloses the following limitations:
“A method for automated filling of ... worker shifts and customized electronic calendaring and ... shift scheduling, the method implemented by one or more shift scheduling computing systems and comprising: ...” - WIW Scheduler Reference Guide discloses, “From your Computer,” “Use the Scheduler to create and manage the schedule for your workplace,” “You can access the Scheduler in the When I Work web app,” and “The schedule displays scheduled shifts” for “Feb 16 - Feb 22, 2020” (p. 1/10); and “switch between day, week, and month view” (p. 6/10). Operation of the Scheduler for managing shifts and a calendar, involving use of computers, in WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, reads on the recited limitation.
The combination of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide and WIW Split Shifts teaches limitations below of independent claim 1 that do not appear to be disclosed in their entirety by WIW Scheduler Reference Guide:
The recited “worker shifts” include “declined partial worker shifts” - WIW Split Shifts discloses, “If your Manager has approved the feature, you can use the Split Shift option to split your shift in two. This allows you to swap or drop a part of your shift” (p. 1/2). The dropped parts of shifts, in WIW Split Shifts, reads on the recited limitation.
The recited “scheduling” includes “partial shift scheduling” - See the aspects of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide and WIW Split Shifts that have been mentioned above. WIW Scheduler Reference Guide also discloses, “Eligible employees can pic up OpenShifts that haven’t already been claimed” (p. 2/10). Employees keeping parts of their shifts, or picking up parts of shifts that haven’t already been claimed, in WIW Split shifts, when applied in context with WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, reads on the recited limitation.
“... in response to an automatic shift fill request received from the first user device via the communication networks, associated with a first portion of the shift, and triggered by a first acceptance of a second portion of the shift indicated by a first user of the first user device via a first manipulation of the shift indicator to visually indicate on the shift indicator the second portion of the shift: ...” - WIW Split Shifts discloses, “From your Computer,” “Hover over your name, then select My Schedule,” and “Select a shift to split” (p. 1/2); and “Drag the slider to shift in two. When finished, click Split Shift,” “Split Shift on December 21, 2018,” and “Drag the slider to the time where you’d like to split your shift,” “Refresh the My Schedule page. You will see that your one shift has turned into two,” and “Swap or drop the shifts that have been split or even split it again” (p. 2/2). In response to shifts being offered or assigned to employees via their computers and related networks, wherein the shifts are split into first parts and second parts, with employees accepting one of the parts of the shifts and dropping other parts of the shifts, with the splitting being performed via manipulation of the sliders to define the parts, in WIW Split Shifts, reads on the recited limitation.
WIW Split Shift discloses WIW features similar to the claimed invention and to WIW Scheduler Reference Guide. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the shift splitting and related scheduling features, of WIW Split Shift, with the shift scheduling features of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, because they are part of the same WIW platform, and because doing so provides employees with further control over aspects of their schedules, as taught by WIW Split Shift (see p. 2/2). Although various WIW references are cited individually for clarity in this Office Action, it should be understood that the WIW references also can be viewed as portions of a whole reference disclosing the WIW platform.
The combination of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, and WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule teaches limitations below of independent claim 1 that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by the combination of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide and WIW Split Shifts:
“... sending, to a first user device via one or more communication networks, a first shift request comprising a first link to a customized and interactive schedule calendar graphical user interface (GUI) comprising a shift indicator for display, wherein the shift indicator graphically represents a shift duration of a shift and comprises a first end associated with a start of the shift and a second end associated with an end of the shift; ...” - WIW Scheduler Reference Guide discloses, “The employee has confirmed all assigned shifts” (p. 10/10). WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule discloses, “From your Computer” and “view your schedule from the iPhone/iPad and Android apps” (p. 1/4), “Click Confirm Shifts above the schedule to confirm shifts in the weeks you’re currently viewing” (p. 2/4), and a blue bar for a shift identified as “3p - 9:30p” and “at Metropolis” (p. 3/4). Sending, to employee computers or smartphones via their associated networks, assigned shifts and clickable elements for confirming shifts, wherein interfaces include colored bars representing shifts, in WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule, when applied in the context of scheduling processes and interface elements, in WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, reads on the recited limitation.
WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule discloses WIW features similar to the claimed invention and to the combination of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide and WIW Split Shift. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the employee device interface elements for scheduling shifts, of WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule, with the shift scheduling features of the combination of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide and WIW Split Shifts, to help employees see their schedules, confirm their shifts, and the like, as taught by WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule (see p. 1/4).
The combination of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule, and Taheri teaches limitations below of independent claim 1 that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by the combination of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, and WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule:
“... ranking workers identified as eligible to work the first portion of the shift based on stored personnel data for the workers; and ...” - WIW Scheduler Reference Guide discloses, “offer shifts to a select group of qualified employees” that are “Eligible employees” (p. 1/10). Taheri discloses, “As an example, when scheduling for a particular six-month period, a hospital may allow: (1) on-staff physicians, advanced practitioners, and nurses to sign up for available shifts during a first time period (e.g., Jun. 1-5, 2017); (2) highly rated physicians, advanced practitioners, and nurses (e.g., physicians, advanced practitioners, and nurses that have been ranked, within the system, with a rating above a particular level (e.g., four out of five stars)) to sign up for any remaining available shifts during a second time period (e.g., Jun. 6-10, 2017)” (para. [0031]). Ranking staff based on their ratings to ensure highly-rated staff are eligible for being scheduled for certain shifts, in Taheri, when applied in the context of deeming employees as qualified or eligible in WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, reads on the recited limitation.
“... sending, via the communication networks and to a second user device associated with a highest ranked one of the workers, a second shift request comprising a second link to the customized and interactive schedule calendar GUI with the manipulated shift indicator; ...” - See the aspects of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule, and Taheri that have been mentioned above. Sending, to computers of employees with the highest ratings via associated computer networks, assignments for shifts (as in Taheri) shown on calendar interfaces with visual elements (like colored bars and/or sliders) for delineating shift features (as in WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, and WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule), reads on the recited limitation.
“... receiving, from the second user device and via the communication networks, a second acceptance of the first portion of the shift, wherein the second acceptance is indicated by a second user of the second user device via a second manipulation of the shift indicator to visually indicate the second acceptance of the first portion of the shift; and ...” - See the aspects of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, and WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule that have been mentioned above. Receiving, from computers and associated networks of the employees, confirmations of shifts that previously were parts of larger shifts, wherein the confirming involves displaying of visual elements such as colored bars and sliders, in WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, and WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule, reads on the recited limitation.
“... outputting, to a third user device via the communication networks for display and in response to a selection received from the third user device of a day or time duration that encompasses the shift, the customized and interactive schedule calendar GUI with the shift indicator graphically reflecting the first and second acceptances of the first and second portions of the shift.” - See the aspects of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, and WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule that have been mentioned above. WIW Scheduler Reference Guide also discloses, “From your Computer” that “Applies to Admins, Managers, Supervisors” (p. 1/10). Outputting, to computers of managers via associated networks, for display and in response to managers selecting shifts for publication that emanated from previously split shifts, wherein calendar interfaces show the shifts as confirmed by employees, in WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, and WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule, reads on the recited limitation.
Taheri discloses electronically scheduling workers (see Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to the combination of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, and WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the identifying of qualified and eligible employees, of the combination of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, and WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule, to include the use of rankings based on ratings of the employees, as in Taheri, to incentivize strong workplace performance by rewarding strong performance with more and/or better opportunities for work, as taught by Taheri (see para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule, and Taheri teaches:
“The method as set forth in claim 1, further comprising integrating the customized and interactive schedule calendar GUI with a schedule management application interface to enable data transfer between the customized and interactive schedule calendar GUI and the schedule management application interface.” - See the aspects of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, and WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule that have been mentioned above. The multitude of inter-related interfaces that are used to generate, share, and view information, in WIW Scheduler Reference Guide (see p. 1/10), WIW Split Shifts (see pp. 1/2 and 2/2), and WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule (see pp. 2/4 and 3/4), read on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the features of the cited references, from the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule, and Taheri teaches:
“The method as set forth in claim 2, further comprising providing the customized and interactive schedule calendar graphical interface integrated with the schedule management application interface.” - See the aspects of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, and WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule that have been mentioned above. Providing the multitude of inter-related interfaces that are used to generate, share, and view information, in WIW Scheduler Reference Guide (see p. 1/10), WIW Split Shifts (see pp. 1/2 and 2/2), and WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule (see pp. 2/4 and 3/4), reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the features of the cited references, from the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule, and Taheri teaches:
“The method as set forth in claim 1, further comprising deleting the customized and interactive schedule calendar GUI after completion of the shift.” - See the aspects of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, and WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule that have been mentioned above. Progressing through days of the calendar and scheduling interfaces of WIW, such that older dates are not longer displayed, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule, and Taheri teaches:
“The method as set forth in claim 1, further comprising generating the customized and interactive schedule calendar GUI output to the third user device based on one or more of a type of the third user device or one or more technical configurations of the third user device.” - See the aspects of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, and WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule that have been mentioned above. iPhone and Android devices are examples of the recited “type of the third user device” limitation.
Regarding claims 7-11 and 13-17, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-5, the claims recite limitations similar to those of claims 1-5. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1-5 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 7-11 and 13-17. Limitations recited by claims 7-11 and 13-17 that do not appear to have a counterpart in claims 1-5, such as the preamble hardware of independent claims 7 and 13, are disclosed by Taheri (see paras. [0038]-[0042]). Claims 7-11 and 13-17 are, therefore, rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of the combination of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule, and Taheri
Regarding claim 19, the combination of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule, and Taheri teaches:
“The method as set forth in claim 1, wherein the shift indicator comprises a linear progress bar.” - See the aspects of WIW Split Shift that have been mentioned above. The bar and slider interface element, shown on p. 2/2 of WIW Split Shift, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, while the claims are of different scope relative to claim 19, the claims recite limitations similar to those recited by claim 19. As such, the rationales applied to reject claim 19 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 20 and 21. Claims 20 and 21 are, therefore, rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of the combination of WIW Scheduler Reference Guide, WIW Split Shifts, WIW Viewing Your Personal Schedule.
Response to Arguments
On pp. 9-15 of the Response, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 USC 101. More specifically, with respect to Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, the applicant argues: (1) “the pending claims are directed to a specific, significant, and meaningful claimed invention of an improved GUI that efficiently facilitates automated worker shift scheduling and provides automated shift coverage for declined partial shifts via an improved system of electronic communications from a centralized shift scheduling computing system” (Response, p. 10), (2) “This technology automatically identifies user devices to which shift requests should be directed via rankings and particularized GUIs and populates calendar GUIs with indicators reflecting shift coverages, which cannot be performed without a computing device” (Response, p. 10), and (3) “The independent claims make clear that the invention cannot reasonable be performed in the human mind” in that, among other things, “generating a customized and interactive schedule calendar graphical interface with particular content in particular locations for displays and facilitating particular claimed functionality requires a computing device and cannot reasonably be said to be part of any mental process” (Response, pp. 10 and 11).
The examiner finds the applicant’s arguments, with respect to Step 2A, Prong One, unpersuasive. The applicant’s arguments mix abstract idea elements of the claims with additional elements of the claims. The arguments then contend that there are no abstract idea elements because of the additional elements. When the claims are properly separated into abstract idea elements (for consideration at Step 2A, Prong One) and additional elements (not for consideration at Step 2A, Prong One), it is clear that the abstract idea elements of the claims do indeed fall under the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. See the 35 USC 101 section above for identification of abstract idea elements and additional elements.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, the applicant argues: (1) “the claims are patent-eligible because the claims are directed to a particular practical application as they provide a technical solution to a technological problem relating to effective, accurate, and automated electronic calendaring systems and associated graphical and functional displays” (Response, p. 12), (2) “This technology solves a technical problem of generating effective GUIs that are integrated across devices to manage shift coverage for declined partial shifts in a meaningful and visual or graphical way to improve electronic or digital calendaring functionality” (Response, p. 12), (3) “As in Example 37 of the 2019 Guidelines, the claimed technology recites a specific manner and organization of automatically displaying content, which provides a specific improvement over prior system and results in an improved user interface” (Response, p. 12), (4) “the claimed invention is ‘necessarily rooted in computer technology’ because generating custom and dynamic electronic calendaring GUIs with particular digital content in specified locations is simply not a problem that exists outside of computer networks. See DDR Holdings, LLC” (Response, p. 12), (5) “Leveraging an automated system of communications with user devices to automatically obtain shift coverage for declined partial shifts information and dynamically populate centralized electronic calendars is a technical solution to a technical problem relating to optimizing generated and output GUIs that are effective to manage worker shift scheduling” (Response, pp. 12 and 13), (6) “Such GUIs as recited in the pending claims do not merely reflect automation of any manual process” (Response, p. 13), and (7) “The electronic calendaring of shift schedules including graphical elements that can be manipulated to trigger automated actions solves a technical problem only existing in computer technology that provides a specific improvement over prior calendar user interfaces, as in Example 37” (Response, p. 13).
The examiner finds the applicant’s arguments, with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, unpersuasive. The claimed invention does not provide a technical solution to a technological problem. Instead, the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a non-technological problem. The non-technological problem is employee scheduling of shifts, including partial shifts. The acts performed by the technical elements, in the claimed invention, are acts that can be performed by one or more individuals, either mentally or with the aid of pen and paper, as evidenced by the fact that scheduling employee shifts has been performed conventionally manually, that is, without computer assistance. The question is what role the additional elements play in the process. The answer is that they are generically-recited conventional computer componentry, that merely automate manual shift scheduling activities, and they operate conventionally when doing so. The claimed invention results in improved employee shift scheduling, which is an abstract idea, and not in any improvement to technology used to perform the scheduling. Per MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” The examiner makes similar contentions about Example 37, which was highlighted by the applicant. Eligibility in Example 37 hinged on the claimed invention involving improving user interfaces by provide specific improvement over prior user interfaces. A new interface capability was at issue in Example 37 claim 1. The applicant’s claimed invention does not involve an improvement to user interfaces or any other technology. Instead, the applicant’s claimed invention involves using conventional user interface and technology to attempt to improve employee shift scheduling. No new user interface capabilities are involved in the claimed invention. Example 37 claim 2 also does not indicate eligibility of the claimed invention because, unlike exemplary claim 2, the claimed invention recites multiple abstract idea elements. As such, the eligibility rationales of Example 37 are not applicable to the claimed invention. Similarly, eligibility in DDR Holdings is based on there being a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)), which appears to be an improvement in hyperlinking and webpages (i.e., a technology or technical field). Nothing in the claimed invention appears to improve hyperlinking, webpages, or any other technology or technical field. Reciting use of technology in a process is not necessarily evidence that the technology is improved. The claimed invention appears to use technology in conventional ways, without any improvement thereto.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the applicant argues: (1) “the instant claims do involve more than performance of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry” in view of the claimed sending, first user device, communication networks, first link, GUI, and shift indicator limitations (Response, p. 14), (2) “they add specific limitations other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, and add unconventional steps that confine the claims to a particular useful application” (Response, p. 14), (3) the claims “are directed to issues rooted in computer technology for significant and meaningful limitations relating to electronic calendaring functionality and GUI integration” (Response, p. 14), and (4) “this technology does not merely implement conventional functions, and instead requires a specially programmed computing device with particular data and graphical interfaces” (Response, pp. 14 and 15).
The examiner finds the applicant’s arguments, with respect to Step 2B, unpersuasive. The arguments mix abstract idea elements and additional elements. When viewing the additional elements, it is clear that they include limitations that are well-understood, routine, and conventional, when viewed individually or in combination, according to MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
For at least the reasons outlined in the paragraphs above, the claim rejection under 35 USC 101 is proper. The rejection is, therefore, maintained, with slight modifications to address the amendments made to the claim via the Response.
On pp. 16-18 of the Response, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 USC 103. More specifically, the applicant argues: (1) “WIW does not disclose or suggest that any shift request with a link to an updated calendar GUI with the manipulated slider is sent to a second user in response to the first user’s request to split a shift, let alone to a higher ranked second user” (Response, p. 17), (2) “no automated activity occurs in response to splitting a shift in WIW” (Response, p. 17), (3) “no automatic shift fill requests are triggered in WIW so there would be no reason to determine any order of such requests or any ranking of users to direct such requests” (Response, p. 18).
The examiner finds the applicant’s arguments, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection, unpersuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “shift request with a link to an updated calendar GUI with the manipulated slider is sent to a second user in response to the first user’s request to split a shift”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims recite a “shift indicator,” which encompasses more than a manipulated slider. For example, a combination of colored blocks of time and related draggable slider (like in WIW Scheduler Reference Guide and WIW Split Shifts) can, in combination, be a “shift indicator.” Further, any process that involves use of computers is, in some way, automated. Thus, even if a user contributes to some action being performed using a computer, the action is nevertheless automated because of the involvement of the computer. Other arguments with respect to the claims are moot because the new grounds of rejection relies on a different combination of new and previously-cited references. For at least these reasons, claim rejections under 35 USC 103 continue to be asserted against the pending claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes the following:
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2008/0091501 A1 to Tewari et al. discloses, “Systems and methods of partial shift swapping are disclosed. An exemplary method comprises the steps of: receiving a partial shift swap request from an agent; determining a disposition of the partial shift swap request by applying a set of criteria associated with a validation rule to the partial shift swap request; and if the disposition indicates the partial shift swap request is approved, updating a schedule to reflect the partial shift swap request. An exemplary computer-readable medium has a computer program stored thereon. The computer program comprises computer-executable instructions for performing a computer-executed method of requesting a partial shift swap. The method comprises the steps of: receiving a partial shift swap request from an agent; determining a disposition of the partial shift swap request by applying a set of criteria associated with a validation rule to the partial shift swap request; and if the disposition indicates the partial shift swap request is approved, updating a schedule to reflect the partial shift swap request.” (Abstract.)
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2013/0090968 A1 to Borza discloses, “Organizations must manage employee schedules to ensure that adequate personnel are present as required, regulatory requirements met, and costs tracked/minimized. Prior art systems are taught as internal to an organization and hence do not address part-time or temporary employees who have multiple conflicts on their time. An employee scheduling software system is taught that accesses multiple extrinsic databases hosting schedules relating to an employee allowing scheduling to avoid external conflicts for the employer and allowing employees to respond to schedules as well as trade/auction with other employees with confidence. Further, by associating a portable electronic device to the employee and hosting a scheduling application on these devices the employees are able to review/modify/trade/auction shifts with increased flexibility and employers are provided with a more accurate clocking in/out process to verify the employee's attendance and completion of their shift.” (Abstract.)
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 s