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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a first Final Office Action to Application Serial Number: 17/751,655, filed on May 23, 2022. In response to Examiner's Non-Final Office Action dated September 12, 2024, Applicant on December 11, 2024 amended claims 1and 5-9, 11, 13 and 14. Claims 1-14 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are acknowledged.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9 and 13 are hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant’s arguments and amendments. New 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9 and 13.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are hereby amended pursuant to Applicants amendments to claims 1 and 9. Updated 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been applied to amended claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10-12 and 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed December 11, 2024 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed December 11, 2024.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states Independent claim 1 includes additional elements of a processor and a memory. Applicant recites limitations from claim 1 and par. 0003-0004 of the specification (see par. 9, Applicant Remarks).
Thus, the claims present a method that improves the functioning of a computer and is eligible under Step 2A Prong Two. Claim 1 is eligible accordingly. Independent claims 9 and 15 have been similarly amended and are eligible for at least these reasons as well.
Additionally, Applicant states the claims are eligible under Step 2A Prong Two, at a minimum, an inventive concept is provided under the second part (Step 2B) of the Alice/Mayo test. Applicant cites Example 3 and reasons for eligibility (see par. , Applicant Remarks).
Claim 1 provides an innovation in computer technology, namely assignment processing, that reflects both an improvement in the functioning of the computer and an improvement in assignments. Further, just as the claimed process of claim 1 of Example 3 allowed the computer to use less memory than previously required for a similar task and resulted in faster computation time, Applicant's method similarly uses less memory and has a faster computation time. In addition, in Example 3, such improvements were not provided in claim 1 itself, and only as part of the hypothetical Specification. Applicant takes an additional step of claiming one of the improved computer functions (increased processing speed) in independent claim 1. As such, claim 1 presents eligible subject matter under step 2B as well. In addition, independent claims 9 and 15 are similarly method claims that have been amended similar to claim 1 and are eligible subject matter for the same reasons as claim 1.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant claims are evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement; MPEP 21060.04(d)(1). However, Examiner finds the pending claims do not reflect improvements related to computer efficiency or functioning (e.g. less memory, lower power, fewer clock cycles, etc.). Examiner notes the advancements disclosed in RCT v. Microsoft (i.e. Example 3) recites improvements to the functioning of a computer. Specifically, in RCT v. Microsoft, the claims are directed to a process of halftoning an image comprising the steps of generating a mask, comparing pixels, and using the results of the comparison to convert a binary image to a halftoned image. The process uses less memory, had faster computation times, and processed improved image quality compared to other masks. In contrast, Examiner finds there are no similar improvements here. The present claims recite limitations more similar to concepts identified by the courts that are not indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant has failed to adequately point out what technological process in the claimed invention is improved. Examiner finds, Applicant is attempting to say the Step 2A-Prong One elements, the abstract idea, is what makes the claim eligible. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant, regardless of the complexity and/or granularity processing an evaluation of an assignment plan or competing bid based on priority rules faster with a processor without meaningful limitations within the claims that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself is a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea). Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant, general purpose computer elements/structure, similar to the claimed inventions system, used to apply a judicial exception, by use of instruction implemented on a computer, has not been found by the courts to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has not identified any limitations in the claimed invention that show or submit that the technology used is being improved or there was a problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves. For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11-12, filed December 11, 2024, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Applicant’s arguments are considered moot because they are directed to newly amended subject matter and do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for further explanation and rationale.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error. Claim limitation “wherein when incomplete planning information is available for the assignment plane…” should recite “assignment plan”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error. Claim limitation “Identifying…” should be lowercase. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “faster” in claims 1 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “faster” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Specification states “the described cascading assignment planner is able to arrive at the best assignments faster and more reliably and using fewer computing resources (e.g., less memory, lower power, fewer clock cycles, etc.) with an incomplete data set to thereby improve the functionality of the computing devices used in analyzing resource-to-task assignments” (see para. 0034) and a cascading assignment planner can be used in reassigning computing resources in a data center as the resources age, so that when an old or malfunctioning unit is taken offline, the newest, fastest, or most reliable devices are assigned for computing tasks with a highest priority level, while other devices are shifted to lower priority computing tasks (see par. 00036). The specification is unclear regarding the scope of “faster”. For the purpose of examination “faster” is defined as efficiency.
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.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1-14 are directed towards a method, which is among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites managing assignment plans based on predicted vacancies and resource bids and claim 9 recites updating schedule plans based on resource priorities.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, updating tentative vacancies for roles in an assignment plan; evaluating the assignment plan based on simulated bids for resources to fill the tentative vacancies and based on priority rules; in response to determining that the simulated bids fulfill the assignment plan according to an assignment threshold, publishing the tentative vacancies as actual vacancies for actual bids; receiving actual bids from at least a portion of the resources; and evaluating the assignment plan based on the actual bids, wherein when incomplete planning information is available for the assignment plane the evaluating the assignment plane based on the priority rules is processed faster than if the evaluating were not based on the priority rules constitutes methods based on evaluations, observation and judgement that can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper, as well as methods based on commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or interactions or relationships between people. The recitation of a processor based on a cascading assignment planner stored in a memory does not take the claim out of the mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity groupings. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, identifying competing bids from at least two resources for a plurality of update paths; reading the competing bids for priority keys that identify preferences and priorities for associated resources of the at least two resources for individual update paths of the plurality of update paths; and determining an update order for the at least two resources via the update paths that respects the preferences and priorities associated with the priority keys; wherein when incomplete planning information is available for the competing bids the reading the competing bids based on the priority rules is processed faster than if the reading were not based on the priority rules constitutes methods based on evaluations, observation and judgement that can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper, as well as methods based on commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or interactions or relationships between people. The recitation of a processor based on a cascading assignment planner stored in a memory does not take the claim out of the mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity groupings. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites in response to determining that the actual bids fulfill the assignment plan, publishing, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, a update plan based on the actual bids as awarded to the resources and claim 9 recites and releasing, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, an update plan scheduled according to the update order, which are both limitations considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claims 1 and 9 recites a processor based on the cascading assignment planner at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1 and 9 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including the processor based on a cascading assignment planner amounts to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, claim 14 recite an electrical generator limitation that is not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 2-8 and 10-14 recite additional limitations constituting methods based on evaluations, observation, opinion and judgement that can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper, as well as methods based on managing personal behavior or interactions or relationships between people and commercial or legal interactions. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that weren’t considered in independent claims 1 and 9. Therefore claims 2-8 and 10-14 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 2, 5, 8, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narasimhan et al., U.S. Publication No. 2005/0096962 [Narasimhan], and further in view of Powell et al., U.S. Publication No. 2002/0065700 [hereinafter Powell].
Referring to Claim 1, Narasimhan teaches:
A method, comprising:
updating, with a processor based on a cascading assignment planner stored in a memory, tentative vacancies for roles in an assignment plan (Narasimhan, [0066]), “methods described herein can be implemented in hardware or software, or a combination of hardware and software…”; (Narasimhan, [0071]), “processor can be configured to operate on one or more processor-controlled devices that can be similar or different devices. Furthermore, references to memory, unless otherwise specified, can include one or more processor-readable and accessible memory elements and/or components that can be internal to the processor-controlled device”; (Narasimhan, [0031]), “using real-time data regarding events, activities, worker attendance, security monitoring, equipment breakdowns, and the like, the tasking module can process the rosters and the real-time data to generate real-time task assignments and/or real-time adjustments to the rosters”; (Narasimhan, [0047]; [0054]), “shift trades”; (Narasimhan, [0030]), “Data regarding expected events, tasks, timing, and/or other factors and/or activities affecting staffing can be provided to a modeling module. The modeling module can process the input data to determine staffing and/or equipment requirements per time period, by worker type, by location, and/or by other staffing/equipment categorizations based on staffing/equipment data for such events, timing, etc.”; (Narasimhan, [0040]-[0041]), “planning processor 402 can receive roster generation request 404, and can combine the shift requirements 312 generated by WorkOptimize 112 with employee data 406 to generate an employee roster 408… Roster generation request 404 can include one or more generation parameters 404a that can determine the types of roster 408 generated by planning processor 402… generation parameters 404a can include a parameter to indicate whether roster 408 can be used for shift bidding… For shift bidding, planning processor 402 can generate a roster of pseudo workers that can be utilized by WorkNet 116, as indicated by arrow 410, as a basis for workers to bid on available shifts in roster 408…”; (Narasimhan, [0013]; [0016]; [0037]-[0038]; [0065]);
evaluating, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, the assignment plan based on simulated bids for resources to fill the tentative vacancies and based on priority rules (Narasimhan, [0043]), “… The bids can include a prioritized order of shifts for each bidding worker”; (Narasimhan, [0041]), “Roster generation request 404 can include one or more generation parameters 404a that can determine the types of roster 408 generated by planning processor 402… generation parameters 404a can include a parameter to indicate whether roster 408 can be used for shift bidding… For shift bidding, planning processor 402 can generate a roster of pseudo workers that can be utilized by WorkNet 116, as indicated by arrow 410, as a basis for workers to bid on available shifts in roster 408”; (Narasimhan, [0044]), “bid assignor 518 can assign shifts 520 to those workers having greater bid rankings and to the currently bidding worker by awarding/assigning bids based on bidding rank 514 of each worker and based on the prioritized bids 508 for each worker”; (Narasimhan, [0042]; [0053]; [0066]; [0071]; [0031]);
in response to determining that the simulated bids fulfill the assignment plan according to an assignment threshold, publishing, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, the tentative vacancies as actual vacancies for actual bids (Narasimhan, [0030]), “The optimization module can output and/or provide work and/or shift start and end times, and numbers of workers/equipment per shift to meet the staffing and/or equipment requirements”; (Narasimhan, [0036]), “staffing requirements”, Examiner considers the staffing requirements to teach the threshold element; (Narasimhan, [0065]), “planning and managing worker assignments. Input data regarding expected events and tasks can be processed to determine staffing requirements per hour, by worker, and by location. The requirements can be processed together with business and worker rules data to generate shift times and numbers of workers per shift. The shift data can be processed with preference data to generate work rosters, which can be distributed to workers. Using a bid processor, workers can bid on… shifts”; (Narasimhan, [0031]), “using real-time data regarding events, activities, worker attendance, security monitoring, equipment breakdowns, and the like, the tasking module can process the rosters and the real-time data to generate real-time task assignments and/or real-time adjustments to the rosters”; (Narasimhan, [0041]; [0065]; [0066]; [0071]; [0031]);
receiving, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, actual bids from at least a portion of the resources (Narasimhan, [0042]-[0043]), “WorkNet 116 (for the illustrative embodiment) that can be used for roster bidding… bidding processor 502 can receive bidding rosters… from WorkPlan 114 and can provide roster data 504 to workers via user interface 102 of FIG. 1. For the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 5, interface 102 can include and/or interface to a web portal 506 for connection to network 104, though other interfaces can be used. Roster data 504 can include shifts available for bidding 504a, e.g., rosters for pseudo workers… For shift bidding, workers can view shifts available for bidding 504a and submit bids 508 for desired shifts… Bidding processor 502 can receive the bids 508…”; (Narasimhan, [0066]; [0071]; [0031])
evaluating, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, the assignment plan based on the actual bids (Narasimhan, [0043]-[0045]), “As a bid is received from a worker, bid monitoring module 516 of bidding processor 502 can determine, based on bidding rank 514, whether bids from workers having greater bid rankings than the currently bidding worker remain to be received… bid assignor 518 can assign shifts 520 to those workers having greater bid rankings and to the currently bidding worker by awarding/assigning bids based on bidding rank 514 of each worker and based on the prioritized bids 508 for each worker… Depending on worker data 406, business rules 204, shift rules 304 and/or other data available to bidding processor 502, assigned shifts 520 can be available for trading and bidding processor 502 can update roster data 504 by adding assigned shifts 520 to shifts available for trading 504b”; (Narasimhan, [0050]; [0066]; [0071]; [0031]); and
in response to determining that the actual bids fulfill the assignment plan, publishing, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, a update plan based on the actual bids as awarded to the resources (Narasimhan, [0065]), “A tasking module can receive the resulting work rosters and combine them with real-time data to generate real-time task assignments and/or real-time adjustments to the rosters. A relaying module can communicate the real-time task assignments and rosters to the workers”; (Narasimhan, [0031]), “The work rosters can be distributed and, using a bidding module, workers can bid on available shifts, trade shifts, and/or otherwise seek to customize their work schedules. A tasking module can receive the customized work rosters and the equipment rosters… the tasking module can process the rosters and the real-time data to generate real-time task assignments and/or real-time adjustments to the rosters. A relaying module can communicate the real-time task assignments and rosters to the workers, work teams, and/or work groups via one or more communications devices”; (Narasimhan, [0066]; [0071]; [0031]).
Narasimhan teaches determining worker requirements based on at least one of business rules and business data, optimizing (based on a scheme) the worker requirements based on shift rules to obtain shift requirements, and, generating listings of work shifts based on the shift requirements and employee data (see par. 0013) and data regarding expected events, tasks, timing, and/or other factors and/or activities affecting staffing can be provided to a modeling module and processed determine staffing and/or equipment requirements per time period, by worker type, by location, and/or by other staffing/equipment categorizations based on staffing/equipment data for such events, timing, etc. (see par. 0030), but Narasimhan does not explicitly teach:
wherein when incomplete planning information is available for the assignment plane the evaluating the assignment plane based on the priority rules is processed by the processor faster than if the evaluating were not based on the priority rules.
However Powell teaches:
wherein when incomplete planning information is available for the assignment plane the evaluating the assignment plane based on the priority rules is processed by the processor faster than if the evaluating were not based on the priority rules (Powell, [0081]), “present invention allows the service provider to determine manpower requirements. This is accomplished by examining both past allocations of resources and expected future needs enabling the user to achieve a fair distribution or cost effective distribution of manpower. The present invention provides those work force members already working in the pooled work order locality are considered first, thus minimizing travel times. This is accomplished again by examining the entire daily schedule for the work force when allocating pooled work to providers”; (Powell, [0080]), “present invention allows the user to quickly and efficiently create schedules that meet employee preferences and still provide customer coverage, thereby reducing absenteeism, improving workforce morale, and allowing overtime expenses to be reduced. Furthermore the present invention reduces the man hours spent trying create a workable schedule by using the computational power of a computer. A user can quickly generate an efficient schedule which fairly distributes assignments among employees with user-prioritized rules”; (Powell, [0040]; [0062]; [0078]), Examiner notes “… faster than if the evaluating were not based on the priority rules” has not been given patentable weight because it merely recites intended use of the system. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a "‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention." Id. However, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). See MPEP 2111.04(I).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the generated work shifts in Narasimhan to include the planning information limitation as taught by Powell. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of planning and management of worker and equipment assignments in Narasimhan (see par. 0003) to efficiently include the results of quickly and efficiently creating schedules that meet employee preferences and still provide coverage (see Powell par. 0015).
Referring to Claim 2, Narasimhan in view of Powell teaches the method of claim 1. Narasimhan further teaches:
wherein the tentative vacancies are a result of one or more of: an additional role being added to a pool of roles; a resource leaving a pool of resources (Narasimhan, [0060]-[0061]), “tasking processor 702 can receive the finalized roster data 504 from WorkNet 116 and can generate tasks to be assigned 704 based on business model 204, business data 206, real-time flight data 706, events data 708, and/or other tasking data 710… real-time flight data 706 can include changes in flight schedules 206a, e.g., new flights… Events data 708 can include data for specialized events that can affect task assignments 704. For example, a security alert can cause additional security personnel, and/or can cause higher levels of security clearances for access to work areas than would otherwise be the case… weather alerts, take-off and landing emergencies, and/or other emergencies, cancellations, diversions, changes to aircrafts, etc., can cause changes in tasks to be assigned… tasking processor 702 can generate task assignments 712 based on the generated tasks 704, roster data 504, personnel attendance updates 71”
Referring to Claim 5, Narasimhan in view of Powell teaches the method of claim 1. Narasimhan further teaches:
wherein evaluating the assignment plan includes performing an award script that follows the priority rules when awarding a vacancy between competing resources (Narasimhan, [0045]), “… Depending on worker data 406, business rules 204, shift rules 304 and/or other data available to bidding processor 502, assigned shifts 520 can be available for trading and bidding processor 502 can update roster data 504 by adding assigned shifts 520 to shifts available for trading 504b”; (Narasimhan, [0030]; [0050]).
Referring to Claim 8, Narasimhan in view of Powell teaches the method of claim 1. Narasimhan further teaches:
wherein determining that the actual bids fulfill the assignment plan includes:
Identifying, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, competing bids from at least two resources for a plurality of update paths; reading, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, the competing bids for priority keys that identify preferences and priorities for associated resources of the at least two resources for individual update paths of the plurality of update paths (Narasimhan, [0043]), “For shift bidding, workers can view shifts available for bidding 504a and submit bids 508 for desired shifts. The available shifts can include an ordered listing of shifts based on worker search criteria. The bids can include a prioritized order of shifts for each bidding worker. Bidding processor 502 can receive the bids 508. Bidding processor 502 can also receive as input, worker data 406, which can include bid ranking criteria 510, e.g., seniority, age, company rules, etc. Ranking module 512 of bidding processor 502 can determine a bidding rank 514 for each worker. As a bid is received from a worker, bid monitoring module 516 of bidding processor 502 can determine, based on bidding rank 514, whether bids from workers having greater bid rankings than the currently bidding worker remain to be received”; (Narasimhan, [0053]), “bids can be awarded/assigned by bid rank 514 and by the prioritized order of a worker's bids 508. When bidding processor 502 receives bids from a worker, it can determine 618 if bids from workers having higher bid ranks 514 remain to be received. If bids remain to be received, bidding processor 502 can await 620 further bids…”; (Narasimhan, [0044]-[0045]; [0066]; [0071]; [0031]);
determining an update order for the at least two resources via the update paths that respects the preferences and priorities associated with the priority keys (Narasimhan, [0044]-[0045]), “…the worker with the highest bid ranking would be awarded/assigned their first choice of available shifts. Once a shift is assigned, it is no longer available (e.g., removed from the ordered list)… the worker with the next highest bid ranking would be assigned their first choice of available shifts from the ordered list the worker selected, and so forth. If none of a worker's prioritized shifts are available, bid assignor 518 can end assigned/awarded bids and assigning shifts. Using assigned shift data 520, bidding processor 502 can update roster data 504 by removing assigned shifts 520 from shifts available for bidding 504a”; (Narasimhan, [0053]).
Referring to Claim 9, Narasimhan teaches:
A method comprising:
identifying, with a processor based on a cascading assignment planner stored in a memory, competing bids from at least two resources for a plurality of update paths (Narasimhan, Fig. 5; [0042]), “FIG. 5… can be used for roster bidding and trading. In general, bidding processor 502 can receive bidding rosters 410 and/or trading rosters 412 from WorkPlan 114…”; (Narasimhan, [0031]), “work rosters can be distributed and, using a bidding module, workers can bid on available shifts, trade shifts, and/or otherwise seek to customize their work schedules”; (Narasimhan, [0066]), “methods described herein can be implemented in hardware or software, or a combination of hardware and software…”; (Narasimhan, [0071]), “processor can be configured to operate on one or more processor-controlled devices that can be similar or different devices. Furthermore, references to memory, unless otherwise specified, can include one or more processor-readable and accessible memory elements and/or components that can be internal to the processor-controlled device”; (Narasimhan, [0031]), “using real-time data regarding events, activities, worker attendance, security monitoring, equipment breakdowns, and the like, the tasking module can process the rosters and the real-time data to generate real-time task assignments and/or real-time adjustments to the rosters”; (Narasimhan, [0043]-[0045]; [0053]);
reading, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, the competing bids for priority keys that identify preferences and priorities for associated resources of the at least two resources for individual update paths of the plurality of update paths (Narasimhan, [0043]), “For shift bidding, workers can view shifts available for bidding 504a and submit bids 508 for desired shifts. The available shifts can include an ordered listing of shifts based on worker search criteria. The bids can include a prioritized order of shifts for each bidding worker. Bidding processor 502 can receive the bids 508. Bidding processor 502 can also receive as input, worker data 406, which can include bid ranking criteria 510, e.g., seniority, age, company rules, etc. Ranking module 512 of bidding processor 502 can determine a bidding rank 514 for each worker. As a bid is received from a worker, bid monitoring module 516 of bidding processor 502 can determine, based on bidding rank 514, whether bids from workers having greater bid rankings than the currently bidding worker remain to be received”; (Narasimhan, [0053]), “bids can be awarded/assigned by bid rank 514 and by the prioritized order of a worker's bids 508. When bidding processor 502 receives bids from a worker, it can determine 618 if bids from workers having higher bid ranks 514 remain to be received. If bids remain to be received, bidding processor 502 can await 620 further bids…”; (Narasimhan, [0044]-[0045]; [0066]; [0071]; [0031]);
determining, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, an update order for the at least two resources via the update paths that respects the preferences and priorities associated with the priority keys (Narasimhan, [0044]-[0045]), “…the worker with the highest bid ranking would be awarded/assigned their first choice of available shifts. Once a shift is assigned, it is no longer available (e.g., removed from the ordered list)… the worker with the next highest bid ranking would be assigned their first choice of available shifts from the ordered list the worker selected, and so forth. If none of a worker's prioritized shifts are available, bid assignor 518 can end assigned/awarded bids and assigning shifts. Using assigned shift data 520, bidding processor 502 can update roster data 504 by removing assigned shifts 520 from shifts available for bidding 504a”; (Narasimhan, [0053]; [0066]; [0071]; [0031]);
releasing, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, an update plan scheduled according to the update order (Narasimhan, [0065]), “A tasking module can receive the resulting work rosters and combine them with real-time data to generate real-time task assignments and/or real-time adjustments to the rosters. A relaying module can communicate the real-time task assignments and rosters to the workers”; (Narasimhan, [0031]), “The work rosters can be distributed and, using a bidding module, workers can bid on available shifts, trade shifts, and/or otherwise seek to customize their work schedules. A tasking module can receive the customized work rosters and the equipment rosters… the tasking module can process the rosters and the real-time data to generate real-time task assignments and/or real-time adjustments to the rosters. A relaying module can communicate the real-time task assignments and rosters to the workers, work teams, and/or work groups via one or more communications devices”; (Narasimhan, [0066]; [0071]; [0031]).
Narasimhan teaches workers can view shifts available for bidding and submit bids for desired shifts. A bid monitoring module of bidding processor can determine, based on bidding rank, whether bids from workers having greater bid rankings than the currently bidding worker remain to be received (see par. 0043), but Narasimhan does not explicitly teach:
wherein when incomplete planning information is available for the competing bids the reading the competing bids based on the priority rules is processed by the processor faster than if the reading were not based on the priority rules.
However Powell teaches:
wherein when incomplete planning information is available for the competing bids the reading the competing bids based on the priority rules is processed by the processor faster than if the reading were not based on the priority rules (Powell, [0081]), “present invention allows the service provider to determine manpower requirements. This is accomplished by examining both past allocations of resources and expected future needs enabling the user to achieve a fair distribution or cost effective distribution of manpower. The present invention provides those work force members already working in the pooled work order locality are considered first, thus minimizing travel times. This is accomplished again by examining the entire daily schedule for the work force when allocating pooled work to providers”; (Powell, [0080]), “present invention allows the user to quickly and efficiently create schedules that meet employee preferences and still provide customer coverage, thereby reducing absenteeism, improving workforce morale, and allowing overtime expenses to be reduced. Furthermore the present invention reduces the man hours spent trying create a workable schedule by using the computational power of a computer. A user can quickly generate an efficient schedule which fairly distributes assignments among employees with user-prioritized rules”; (Powell, [0071]), “the computer program 92 will iteratively revise the workforce member schedule by filling the slack time or periods of availability with pooled work orders”; (Powell, [0040]; [0062]; [0072]; [0078]), Examiner notes “… faster than if the reading were not based on the priority rules” has not been given patentable weight because it merely recites intended use of the system. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a "‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention." Id. However, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). See MPEP 2111.04(I).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the generated work shifts in Narasimhan to include the planning information limitation as taught by Powell. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of planning and management of worker and equipment assignments in Narasimhan (see par. 0003) to efficiently include the results of quickly and efficiently creating schedules that meet employee preferences and still provide coverage (see Powell par. 0015).
Referring to Claim 13, Narasimhan in view of Powell teaches the method of claim 9. Narasimhan further teaches:
wherein a first resource specifies a first priority and a second resource specifies a second priority, lower that the first priority (Narasimhan, [0044]), “bid assignor 518 can assign shifts 520 to those workers having greater bid rankings and to the currently bidding worker by awarding/assigning bids based on bidding rank 514 of each worker and based on the prioritized bids 508 for each worker. For example, the worker with the highest bid ranking would be awarded/assigned their first choice of available shifts”; (Narasimhan, [0053]), further comprising:
applying, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, an offset to the first priority for a subset of available times for reassignment (Narasimhan, [0049]), “If the worker chooses bidding the shifts available for bidding 504a, and/or bid sessions that apply to the worker, the worker type, e.g., maintenance foreman, baggage handler, etc., and/or the worker facility, e.g., concourse A, hangar B2, etc., can be displayed 606. For each bid session, the display can include the opening and closing dates and/or times for the bid session and/or period, the worker status with respect to the bid session, and a command line indicating the actions the worker can take regarding the bid session”; (Narasimhan, [0066]; [0071]; [0031]);
wherein the offset is set to one of: equal to a lowest priority among the at least two resources when the first resource remains viable for consideration for reassignment during the subset of available times but at a lower priority than the second resource (Narasimhan, [0011]), “successively assigning a work shift to a next worker having a next lower ranking when the bid session is not open, the work shift being assigned to the next worker based on the prioritized order of the bids submitted by the next worker, and based on shift preferences from the next worker when all of the number of work shifts for which the next worker has submitted bids have been assigned to workers having higher rankings than the ranking of the next worker”; (Narasimhan, [0053]);
equal to a priority threshold when the first resource is not viable for consideration for reassignment during the subset of available times (Narasimhan, [0050]), “An inactive status can indicate a bid has been created, but the worker has not been given a ranking 514, and/or the worker has been given a ranking but the current date is not within the opening and closing dates of the bid session”.
Claims 3, 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narasimhan et al., U.S. Publication No. 2005/0096962 [Narasimhan], in view of Powell et al., U.S. Publication No. 2002/0065700 [hereinafter Powell], and further in view of Ududec et al., U.S. Publication No. 2021/0055700 [hereinafter Ududec].
Referring to Claim 3, Narasimhan in view of Powell teaches the method of claim 1. Narasimhan teaches a planning processor that can generate a roster of pseudo workers as a basis for workers to bid on available shifts in roster (see par. 0041), but Narasimhan does not explicitly teach:
wherein the assignment plan is evaluated based on a probabilistically generated set of simulated bids based on historically observed bidding patterns.
However Ududec teaches:
wherein the assignment plan is evaluated based on a probabilistically generated set of simulated bids based on historically observed bidding patterns (Ududec, [0038]), “… The bid generation module 115 obtains 402 a plurality of models for modeling historical data associated with the operation of the electric grid 140. The bid generation module 115 generates bids 404 based on the plurality of models, a plurality of input probability distributions representing predicted inputs to a complex system optimization executed by an ISO 110 for scheduling power production and transmission across the electric grid 140 according to day-ahead and real-time generation schedules and day-ahead and real-time LMPs. The bid generation module 115 simulates 406 execution of the complex system optimization for each of the multiple input probability distributions to generate respective output probability distributions of predicted deltas between the day-ahead and real-time LMPs as predicted to be determined by the ISO 110. The bid generation module 115 then determines 408 a control input (e.g., one or more day-ahead bids) for submission to the ISO representing nodal corrections to supply and demand that maximize scheduling efficiency based on the probability distributions of the predicted deltas. The bid generation module 115 submits 410 the control input to the optimization system of the ISO 110, which affects how the ISO 110 controls production schedules of generators 120 based in part on the control input”; (Ududec, [0011]; [0036]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the generated bidding roster in Narasimhan to include the assignment plan limitation as taught by Ududec. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of planning and management of worker and equipment assignments in Narasimhan (see par. 0003) to efficiently include the results of maximizing scheduling efficiency based on the probability distributions of the predicted deltas (see Ududec par. 0012).
Referring to Claim 4, the combination of Narasimhan in view of Powell in view of Ududec teaches the method of claim 3. Narasimhan further teaches:
wherein the assignment plan is evaluated over several iterations, where the set of simulated bids is adjusted probabilistically for each iteration (Narasimhan, [0016]), “obtaining from a first worker, a number of bids for available work shifts, the number of bids being no more than a total of available work shifts, prioritizing the number of bids to obtain a prioritized order of bids… assigning work shifts to the higher priority workers… iteratively removing assigning work shifts and assigning to a next worker, in order of bid rank, based on a prioritized order of bids for the next worker. The methods can include returning to awaiting bids when none of the work shifts remaining available correspond to a bid of the next worker”.
Referring to Claim 14, Narasimhan in view of Powell teaches the method of claim 9. Narasimhan teaches a modeling module that can process the input data to determine equipment requirements per time period, by location, and/or by other equipment categorizations based on equipment data for such events, timing, etc. (see par. 0030), but Narasimhan does not explicitly teach:
wherein: the resources are electrical generators.
However Ududec teaches:
wherein: the resources are electrical generators (Ududec, [0028]), “day-ahead processing module 210 receives virtual participant day-ahead bids 202 (e.g., supply or demand bids), day-ahead physical participant bids 204 (demand bids from consumers 130 or supply bids from generators 120)”; (Ududec, [0038]), “The bid generation module 115 submits 410 the control input to the optimization system of the ISO 110, which affects how the ISO 110 controls production schedules of generators 120 based in part on the control input”; (Ududec, [0019]-[0022]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modeled equipment requirement in Narasimhan to include the generator limitation as taught by Ududec. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of planning and management of worker and equipment assignments in Narasimhan (see par. 0003) to efficiently include the results of enabling supply and demand to be better balanced and predictable, thereby improving economic efficiency of the electric grid (see Ududec par. 0037).
Claims 6, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narasimhan et al., U.S. Publication No. 2005/0096962 [Narasimhan], in view of Powell et al., U.S. Publication No. 2002/0065700 [hereinafter Powell], and further in view of Megahed et al., U.S. Publication No. 2019/0220801 [hereinafter Megahed]
Referring to Claim 6, Narasimhan in view of Powell teaches the method of claim 1. Narasimhan teaches an optimization module can process the requirements from the modeling module together with business rule data, worker rule data, and/or data based on other rules and/or regulations governing staffing/equipment usage to output and/or provide work and/or shift start and end times, and numbers of workers/equipment per shift to meet the staffing and/or equipment requirements (see par. 0030) and a processor based on a cascading assignment planner (see par. 0066; 0071; 0031), But Narasimhan does not explicitly teach:
wherein before determining that the simulated bids fulfill the assignment plan, the method further comprising determining, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, in an earlier iteration that the simulated bids do not fulfill the assignment plan, and in response to determining that the simulated bids in the earlier iteration do not fulfill the assignment plan; updating, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, the tentative vacancies for the roles in the assignment plan based on the earlier iteration; and evaluating, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, the assignment plan based on the simulated bids for resources to fill the tentative vacancies as updated.
However Megahed teaches:
wherein before determining that the simulated bids fulfill the assignment plan, the method further comprising determining, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, in an earlier iteration that the simulated bids do not fulfill the assignment plan, and in response to determining that the simulated bids in the earlier iteration do not fulfill the assignment plan; updating, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, the tentative vacancies for the roles in the assignment plan based on the earlier iteration; and evaluating, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, the assignment plan based on the simulated bids for resources to fill the tentative vacancies as updated (Megahed, [0056]), “FIG. 6 illustrates a block diagram illustrating a system 600 for resource prediction and staffing for IT services delivery… system 600 includes the following processes: deal progress monitoring 610, deal win prediction 615, forecasting (or predicting) opportunities to be won 630, forecasting (or predicting) offerings to be won 640, optional model for learning offerings/profile matching 650 including model for learning offerings.Math.profile matching 651, matching profiles and forecasted (or predicted) offerings 660 and staffing optimization 680… system 600 includes the following input/output: deal probability scores 620, estimated deals closure timeline 625, opportunities forecasted/predicted to be won 635, offerings forecasted/predicted to be won 645, skill forecast 675 and optimized staff hiring plan 690.”; (Megahed, [0059]), “… for each opportunity that remains, the simulation processing 750 includes the following processing: use deal progress monitoring 610 to obtain the time interval and next event via maximum likelihood. If the simulation time window 754 is reached or the next event is a win/loss, go to next processing item; otherwise, update the deal status with the update processing 752 and return to deal progress monitoring 610. If the next event is a win, the simulation processing 750 adds to the set of opportunities forecasted to be won 745 in the current time period. Otherwise, the simulation processing 750 discards the information”; (Megahed, [0057]; [0060]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the optimization modeling in Narasimhan to include the evaluation of simulated bids limitations as taught by Megahed. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of planning and management of worker and equipment assignments in Narasimhan (see par. 0003) to efficiently include the results of predicting and planning of staffing needs for services (see Megahed par. 0002).
Referring to Claim 7, Narasimhan in view of Powell teaches the method of claim 1. Narasimhan teaches an optimization module can process the requirements from the modeling module together with business rule data, worker rule data, and/or data based on other rules and/or regulations governing staffing/equipment usage to output and/or provide work and/or shift start and end times, and numbers of workers/equipment per shift to meet the staffing and/or equipment requirements (see par. 0030) and a processor based on a cascading assignment planner (see par. 0066; 0071; 0031), But Narasimhan does not explicitly teach:
wherein before determining that the actual bids fulfill the assignment plan, the method further comprising determining, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, in an earlier iteration that the actual bids do not fulfill the assignment plan, and in response to determining that the actual bids in the earlier iteration do not fulfill the assignment plan: updating, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, the assignment plan by removing at least one of the actual vacancies based on the earlier iteration; and evaluating, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, the assignment plan based on the actual bids for resources to fill the actual vacancies as updated.
However Megahed teaches:
wherein before determining that the actual bids fulfill the assignment plan, the method further comprising determining, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, in an earlier iteration that the actual bids do not fulfill the assignment plan, and in response to determining that the actual bids in the earlier iteration do not fulfill the assignment plan: updating, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, the assignment plan by removing at least one of the actual vacancies based on the earlier iteration; and evaluating, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, the assignment plan based on the actual bids for resources to fill the actual vacancies as updated (Megahed, [0056]), “FIG. 6 illustrates a block diagram illustrating a system 600 for resource prediction and staffing for IT services delivery… system 600 includes the following processes: deal progress monitoring 610, deal win prediction 615, forecasting (or predicting) opportunities to be won 630, forecasting (or predicting) offerings to be won 640, optional model for learning offerings/profile matching 650 including model for learning offerings.Math.profile matching 651, matching profiles and forecasted (or predicted) offerings 660 and staffing optimization 680… system 600 includes the following input/output: deal probability scores 620, estimated deals closure timeline 625, opportunities forecasted/predicted to be won 635, offerings forecasted/predicted to be won 645, skill forecast 675 and optimized staff hiring plan 690.”; (Megahed, [0059]-[0060]), “… for each opportunity that remains, the simulation processing 750 includes the following processing: use deal progress monitoring 610 to obtain the time interval and next event via maximum likelihood. If the simulation time window 754 is reached or the next event is a win/loss, go to next processing item; otherwise, update the deal status with the update processing 752 and return to deal progress monitoring 610. If the next event is a win, the simulation processing 750 adds to the set of opportunities forecasted to be won 745 in the current time period. Otherwise, the simulation processing 750 discards the information… the tradeoff to be optimized is performed by the system flow 700 as follows. If the score threshold is too high, then the system flow 700 will predict less opportunities to be won than what the actual output would be, which will result into predicting less required resources and will lead to being late in the deliveries (because the hired resources are not enough), which would result in having to pay late penalties to customers. On the other hand, if the score threshold is too low, then more opportunities will be predicted to be won than what the actual output would be, which will result in predicting more required resources than what is actually needed, and thus an organization will end up hiring more than needed and that would result in extra unnecessary hiring costs”; (Megahed, [0057]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the optimization modeling in Narasimhan to include the evaluation of actual bids limitations as taught by Megahed. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of planning and management of worker and equipment assignments in Narasimhan (see par. 0003) to efficiently include the results of predicting and planning of staffing needs for services (see Megahed par. 0002).
Referring to Claim 10, Narasimhan in view of Powell teaches the method of claim 9. Narasimhan teaches if the worker chooses bidding the shifts available for bidding, and/or bid sessions that apply to the worker, the worker type, and/or the worker facility can be displayed (see par. 0049), but Narasimhan does not explicitly teach:
wherein the competing bids are for a vacancy in a given role different from current roles that the at least two resources are currently assigned to.
However Megahed teaches:
wherein the competing bids are for a vacancy in a given role different from current roles that the at least two resources are currently assigned to (Megahed, [0067]), “the staffing optimization process 680 chooses among all potential hires with given skill sets. The objective function of the staffing optimization process 680 is to minimize the costs of: staffing hiring at each time period, cost of assignment of staff members to the different opportunities in each location, and cost of late delivery due to lack of some staff/skill at particular times (since the staffing optimization process 680 may not be able to provide hiring of all needed resources at all times because of budget constraints and hiring constraints)”; (Megahed, [0079]-[0080]), “the optimization model may include processing for minimizing related costs of: staffing hiring at each time period, assignment of staff members to different opportunities in each location, and late delivery due to lack at least one of staff and skill, at particular times… for process 1000 determining staffing hiring may include determining how much staff needed to hire having particular skill sets, time frame for hiring the staff, assigning staff to different opportunities at different geographical locations, and providing times when the staff performs work on the different opportunities”, (Megahed, [0068]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the worker bidding in Narasimhan to include the different role limitations as taught by Megahed. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of planning and management of worker and equipment assignments in Narasimhan (see par. 0003) to efficiently include the results of reducing unnecessary staff hiring including the costs incurred with such unnecessary hiring (see Megahed par. 0021).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narasimhan et al., U.S. Publication No. 2005/0096962 [Narasimhan], in view of Powell et al., U.S. Publication No. 2002/0065700 [hereinafter Powell], in view of Megahed et al., U.S. Publication No. 2019/0220801 [hereinafter Megahed], and further in view of Buco et al., U.S. Publication No. 2005/0055697 [hereinafter Buco].
Referring to Claim 11, the combination of Narasimhan in view of Powell in view of Megahed teaches the method of claim 10. Narasimhan teaches bid session can include the opening and closing dates and/or times for the bid session and/or period, the worker status with respect to the bid session, and a command line indicating the actions the worker can take regarding the bid session (see par. 0049) and awarding/assigning bids based on bidding rank of each worker and based on the prioritized bids for each worker (see par. 0044) and a processor based on a cascading assignment planner (see par. 0066; 0071; 0031), but Narasimhan does not explicitly teach:
further comprising verifying, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, that an order of reassignment from the current roles to the given role respects a priority order for the at least two resources.
However Buco teaches:
further comprising verifying, with the processor based on the cascading assignment planner, that an order of reassignment from the current roles to the given role respects a priority order for the at least two resources (Buco, [0061-[0062]), “preemption module examines the inactive job whose first queued task is not a delay task and whose priority is highest, comparing it with an active job whose first task assigned to an employee and whose priority is lowest, if such a pair exists. It checks to see if that employee can meaningfully work on the higher priority task. (This involves checking the commonality constraints, the non-simultaneity constraints and the task time estimates.) If the reassignment is impossible, the preemption module examines the next lowest priority active job, and so on. Eventually one of two things will happen… A pair will qualify for reassignment. In this case, the scheme will swap the roles of the active and queued tasks, perform the relevant bookkeeping and repeat the entire process”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the worker bidding and prioritization in Narasimhan to include the reassignment limitation as taught by Buco. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of planning and management of worker and equipment assignments in Narasimhan (see par. 0003) to efficiently include the results of providing schedules which minimize incurred penalties in the presence of service level agreements (see Buco par. 0002).
Referring to Claim 12, Narasimhan in view of Powell teaches the method of claim 9. Narasimhan teaches a ranking module that can determine a bidding rank for each worker. As a bid is received from a worker, bid monitoring module can determine, based on bidding rank, whether bids from workers having greater bid rankings than the currently bidding worker remain to be received (see par. 0043), but Narasimhan does not explicitly teach:
wherein the competing bids are for update-inputs for reassignment to a new role that the at least two resources are scheduled for reassignment to.
However Buco teaches:
wherein the competing bids are for update-inputs for reassignment to a new role that the at least two resources are scheduled for reassignment to (Buco, [0054]-[0055]), “the scheduler recalculates the solution and returns the immediate assignments and reassignments (step 422). The greedy module employs the actual task completion time of that task which has just completed. Then, appropriate bookkeeping is performed and a determination is made as to whether queued tasks still remain (step 424). If queued tasks still remain, the scheduler reinitiates the think module (step 426) …”; (Buco, [0061-[0062]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the bid ranking in Narasimhan to include the reassignment limitation as taught by Buco. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of planning and management of worker and equipment assignments in Narasimhan (see par. 0003) to efficiently include the results of providing schedules which minimize incurred penalties in the presence of service level agreements (see Buco par. 0002).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koski et al. (US 20130339969 A1) – Human scheduler can reiterate the steps using system to schedule subsequent tasks. Subsequent and preparatory tasks could be assigned to the initial scheduled task in order to create dependencies that cascade throughout a schedule. Since different tasks may have different priorities, a higher priority task (having attributes) that is scheduled at a later date could supersede previously allocated persons and resources in such a way that a cascade of tasks, and thus persons and resources, may need to be reallocated.
Bermon et al. (US 5946212 A) – Capacity planning for manufacturing environments comprising parallel, unrelated tools that can process the same operations at different rates and with preferences for the sequence in which those tools are selected to accommodate the workload. The primary, secondary, etc. tool groups in each cascade set are explicitly kept track of in order to enable the correct penalty function to be associated with the appropriate tool group. The end user may also interact with the input data through a Menu Program or through a Graphical User Interface (GUI) and modify the data for "what-if" analyses.
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 Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Patty 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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights