Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered.
3. The following is a non-Final Office Action. In response to Examiner’s Final Action of 09/05/2024, Applicant, on 11/18/2024, amended independent Claims 1, 10 and 11. Claim 2 was previously cancelled, and Claims 3-9 are as previously presented but deemed amended since they depend from independent Claim 1.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are currently pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
4. Applicant’s amendments and arguments are acknowledged.
5. The prior 35 USC §101 rejection of Claims maintained despite Applicant's amendments and arguments.
Claim interpretation
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
8. In Claim 1, the limitations: “a work schedule creating part configured to create the work schedule”, "an interruption information acquisition part configured to acquire interruption information", "a work schedule modification part configured to .. modify the work schedule"; in Claim 3, the limitation: "a division task completion information acquisition part for acquiring division task completion information"; in Claim 5, the limitation: “an output part configured to output work support information”; and in Claim 8, the limitation: "a worker identification information acquisition part configured to acquire worker identification information" have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use generic placeholders “a work schedule creating part configured to”, "an interruption information acquisition part configured to", "a work schedule modification part configured to”, "a division task completion information acquisition part for”, “an output part configured to”, "a worker identification information acquisition part configured to”, coupled with functional language “create the work schedule”, "acquire interruption information", “modify the work schedule”, “acquiring division task completion information", “output work support information”, “acquire worker identification information", “creating the work schedule", “acquiring interruption information" and “modifying the work schedule", respectively, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the functions. Furthermore, the generic placeholders are not preceded by structural modifiers. Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the Claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that corresponding structure is described in the Drawings at Figure 2 and in the Specification at paragraph 22 for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations recited above.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP §2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). See also MPEP §2181.
9. Examiner notes that in Claim 11, the structure for the limitations: "a work means for creating the work schedule", "a means for acquiring interruption information", "a means for .. modifying the work schedule" is provided in the claim by the limitation “causing a computer to function as:”. Claim 11 is therefore not treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10. 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.
11. Claims 1 and 3-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to statutory categories of system (machine), method (process) or medium (manufacture), they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
12. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 10 recites: A work support method that provides efficient work support by modifying a work schedule in which an interruption event occurs by using a work support system, the work support system comprising: .. store worker unit information about a worker unit including a plurality of workers, .. store division task information about a plurality of division tasks created by dividing at least one support target work, .. create the work schedule on the basis of the worker unit information and the division task information, and .. store the work schedule created .. , .. the work support method comprising: a step of creating .. the work schedule by dividing the at least one support target work into the plurality of division tasks included in a first critical path and a second critical path which are independent of each other with a unit work amount corresponding to the worker unit, and distributing a worker unit to each of the plurality of division tasks of the first critical path and the second critical path with a predetermined priority, on the basis of the worker unit information and the division task information, and to store the work schedule ..; a step of acquiring .. interruption information indicating that the interruption event occurs in any of the plurality of division tasks ..; .. a step of modifying .. the work schedule stored .. by redistributing, regardless of the priority, a first worker unit which is distributed to a second division task included in the first critical path to which a first division task in which the interruption event occurred belongs and which is started with a condition of completion of the first division task after the interruption event to a division task included in the second critical path to which a second worker unit distributed to the first division task in the first critical path is distributed, and by maintaining the distribution of the second worker unit to the first division task beyond its original scheduling time, when .. acquires the interruption information, the modified work schedule providing the efficient work support even though the interruption event has occurred, which is an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), because modifying a work schedule by redistributing workers is a business process for mitigating risk and commercial interactions; it is also an abstract idea of Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because determining resource allocation (redistribution of workers) is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the mind, since it involves evaluation, judgement or observation. Claims 1 and 11 recite a similar abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the independent Claims, including additional elements such as a worker unit database, a division task database, a main server, a work schedule database, a work schedule creating part, an interruption information acquisition part, a user terminal operated by at least one of the plurality of workers, automatically accessing, by a work schedule modification part, the work schedule database triggered by the fact that the interruption information is obtained, A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a work support program, a computer to function as: a work means for creating a work schedule, a means for acquiring interruption information, a means for modifying the work schedule, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B of the analysis, the independent Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1, 2 of the Drawings and paragraphs 14-22 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and 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 discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 3-9 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract idea noted in the independent Claims and further recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 3-8 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited in the independent Claims from which they depend, and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2A Prong Two for the independent Claims.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claim 9 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the Claim, including additional elements such as those listed above for the independent Claims and a plurality of storage shelves, a plurality of tools, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claim does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The Claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 3-8 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited in the independent Claims from which they depend, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2B for the independent Claims.
At Step 2B, dependent Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above at Step 2A Prong Two for dependent Claim 9, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1, 2 of the Drawings and paragraphs 14-22 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and 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 discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Therefore, Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573__ U.S. 2014.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered, but are found not persuasive with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
14. With regard to the subject matter analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 under Step 2A Prong One, Applicant argues (at pp. 11-14) that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception, but to “the significant technical benefit of reducing the processing load on the computer device” using “a special purpose computer programmed to apply the specialized algorithms disclosed in the specification”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The analysis at Step 2A Prong One, as explained in detail at paragraph 12 above in this office action, clearly shows that the claims do not just involve but recite an abstract idea (under the categories of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes) – see MPEP 2106.04(II)A(1); whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception is then determined at Step 2A Prong Two.
With regard to Applicant’s arguments concerning computer efficiency, it is noted at MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) that “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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”.
Examiner also notes that an improvement to the abstract idea (including an algorithm), as evidenced by the withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection in an earlier office action in this application, does not make a claim patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101, as the court has noted (see MPEP 2106.05(I): "As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9).").
Examiner further notes MPEP2181 deals with claim interpretation under BRI, not subject matter eligibility, and that the USPTO Memorandum issued on 4th Aug. 2025 does not change the analysis required under 35 U.S.C. 101 ("Examiners should refer to MPEP sections 2103 to 2106.07 for guidance on 35 U.S.C. 101", as noted in the Memorandum).
15. With regard to the subject matter analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 under Step 2A Prong Two, Applicant argues (at p. 15) that the use of triggering has a "particularly significant effect of preventing unnecessary multiplication of access frequency. .. reducing the processing load on the computer device", and that the additional elements therefore integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, thus making the clams eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional (computer) elements in the instant claims are merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea, as explained in detail at paragraph 12 above in this Office Action. The claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception and are thus ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D).
With regard to Applicant’s arguments (at pp. 16-17) concerning the USPTO Memorandum dated 4th August 2025, Ex parte Desjardins and Recentive Analytics, Examiner notes that the substance of the Memorandum, the Ex parte decision and the Recentive court decision deals with the use of AI and machine learning models, neither of which is at issue in the instant application or claim language.
Examiner notes, with regard to Applicant’s arguments at p. 18, that the fact pattern in Ancora Tech., Inc. v. HTC America, relating to restricting operation of an unauthorized software program, is totally different to that in the instant application.
16. Applicant further argues (at p. 19) that, at Step 2B of the subject matter analysis, the amended claim language "improves the functioning of underlying computer of the work support system of claim 1, and as such, the presently claimed invention, when considered as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception" when considered with regard to "whether or not any of the features of the amended claims of the present application are well-understood, routine, and conventional under Step 2B".
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As required by Berkheimer Memorandum issued April 19th, 2018, evidence is clearly provided (at paragraph 12 above in this Office Action) for the determination that the instant claims do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers, by specifying Figures 1, 2 of the Drawings and paragraphs 14-22 of the Specification in the instant Application, for example, which clearly demonstrate the generic nature of the additional elements. See also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Slagle et al (US Publication 20190130330 A1) describes a system and method for prioritizing and scheduling project tasks.
Moody et al. (US Publication 20050005272 A1) describes a system and method for controlling allocation of resources and task execution.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARJIT S BAINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0317. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Wu Rutao can be reached on (571)272-6045. 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.
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623