DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 10/30/2025. Claims 1, 12 and 18 have been amended. Claims 1-23 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Additionally, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Drawings
The drawings received on 10/30/2025 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended independent claims 1, 12 and 18 recite “applying an anomaly detection model to the information extracted from the relational database to detect anomalies in advance booking data, wherein the anomaly detection model adaptively improves by updating at least one of an anomaly score threshold and a confidence level mapping as new information is extracted from the relational database” (emphasis added).
However, there does not seem to be any support in the originally filed specification for an anomaly detection “model”. Additionally, the specification does not seem to support or recite “adaptively improving” any type of model. Nor does the specification seem to support “updating” any data, much less an anomaly score “threshold”, which the specification additionally fails to describe. Clarification is required. Dependent claims 2-11, 13-17 and 19-23 are rejected based upon the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, method claims 1-11 are directed to a series of steps, apparatus claims 12-17 are directed to one or more processors; and at least one memory storing instructions, and computer program product claims 18-23 are directed to a computer readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon. Thus the claims are directed to a process, machine, and manufacture, respectively.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite generating a schedule of employees, including generating, extracting, receiving, applying, determining, tracking and updating steps.
The limitations of generating, extracting, receiving, applying, determining, tracking and updating, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite generating a dashboard, wherein the dashboard visualizes a shift schedule for one or more employees and provides selections to visualize one or more utilization metrics; extracting information indicative of: a number of booked appointment minutes and a count of booked appointments, wherein the booked appointment minutes comprise total service minutes in a time period; a number of scheduled employee minutes and a count of scheduled employees; and a number of employee break minutes, and wherein the relational database stores shift information associated with the at least one business center; receiving user input selecting at least one utilization metric to forecast; applying an anomaly detection model to the information extracted from the relational database to detect anomalies in advance booking data, wherein the anomaly detection model adaptively improves by updating at least one of an anomaly score threshold and a confidence level mapping as new information is extracted from the relational database; determining, based on a forecasting model applied to the received at least one utilization metric and the extracted information, a first forecast of future appointment minutes; determining one or more weights for the first forecast based on a performance of the first forecast against a history of booked appointment minutes; tracking the at least one utilization metric over at least one day to detect outlier values in advance booking data compared to actual booking data; generating a confidence level mapping based on an anomaly score determined from the at least one tracked utilization metric and a deviation from typical observed values; and updating the shift schedule on the dashboard, based on the confidence level mapping, the first forecast and the one or more weights, to generate an interactive, forecasted schedule indicating a number of employees needed to satisfy the forecast of future appointment minutes, wherein the forecasted schedule comprises a selection to generate a visual comparison between the shift schedule and the at least one metric associated with the forecasted schedule.
That is, other than reciting on a user interface of a computing system, a relational database, wherein the information is continuously extracted from the relational database according to a predetermined time interval, and one or more processors and at least one memory storing instructions (recited in the apparatus and computer program product claims), the claim limitations merely cover managing interactions between people, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include on a user interface of a computing system, a relational database, wherein the information is continuously extracted from the relational database according to a predetermined time interval, and one or more processors and at least one memory storing instructions. The on a user interface of a computing system, a relational database, wherein the information is continuously extracted from the relational database according to a predetermined time interval, and one or more processors and at least one memory storing instructions in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of on a user interface of a computing system, a relational database, wherein the information is continuously extracted from the relational database according to a predetermined time interval, and one or more processors and at least one memory storing instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-4 recite additional determining steps, and further describe the forecasting model and generating a schedule. Claims 5-8 further describe the received information, receiving the information, and determining the one or more weights. Claims recite additional analyzing and suggesting steps. Claims 9-11 recite additional adjusting and determining steps. Similarly, dependent claims 13-17 and 19-23 recite additional details that further restrict/define the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, on a user interface of a computing system, a relational database, wherein the information is continuously extracted from the relational database according to a predetermined time interval, and one or more processors and at least one memory storing instructions.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 00116 of the specification, “Figure 28 is a block diagram of an exemplary computing device on which, for example, the methods described herein may be implemented. Computing device 900 may be controlled primarily by computer readable instructions, which may be in the form of software, wherever, or by whatever means such software is stored or accessed. Such computer readable instructions may be executed within central processing unit (CPU) 910 to cause computing device 900 to do work. In many known workstations and personal computers, central processing unit 910 is implemented by a single-chip CPU called a microprocessor. In other machines, the central processing unit 900 may comprise multiple processors. Coprocessor 915 is an optional processor, distinct from main CPU 910, that performs additional functions or assists CPU 910.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims now expressly recite applying an anomaly detection model that adaptively improves its detection accuracy by updating anomaly score thresholds and confidence level mappings as new information is continuously extracted from the relational database. Applicant submits that these features are not abstract concepts relating to "organizing human activity," but instead constitute concrete technological processes implemented by a computing system to solve a technical problem in automated scheduling. The claims also further specific technical steps related to signal processing and constraint-based optimization, rather than mere automation of human activity.
Even if the claims could be considered to recite an abstract idea a point not conceded the amended claims integrate any judicial exception into a practical application. The claims now require an anomaly detection model that adaptively improves its detection accuracy by updating anomaly score thresholds and confidence level mappings as new information is continuously extracted from the relational database. This feature imposes meaningful limits on the scope of the claims and demonstrates a technical improvement to the computing system itself, rather than merely applying an abstract idea using generic components. These steps further transform raw, heterogeneous scheduling data into actionable, shift schedules in a structured manner for display on an interactive interface.
The USPTO August 4, 2025 Memo instructs that claims reciting a technical solution to a technical problem or an improvement to computer technology should be found eligible. Here, the adaptive anomaly detection model improves its performance over time as it ingests dynamic data from the relational database, which enhances the computing system's ability to process heterogeneous scheduling data and generate accurate detections and forecasts. This adaptive improvement transforms the computer into a specialized forecasting and anomaly detection system, integrating the judicial exception into a practical application.
The amended claims recite a specific, non-conventional combination of technical
features, including an anomaly detection model that adaptively improves based on continuously updated data, time series forecasting, and dynamic forecast adjustment. This adaptive improvement is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field and provides a technological enhancement to computing systems by enabling self-improving anomaly detection and more accurate scheduling forecasts. When viewed as a whole, the claims amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea because they require a particular ordered combination of technical steps that improve computer functionality beyond generic data processing. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As an initial point, method claims 1-11 fail to recite any computing components (i.e., processor) implementing each of the method steps, as seen in claims 12-23. As a result, method claims 1-11 fail to recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice analysis.
Additionally, the claims are directed to “generating a schedule of employees needed to satisfy one or more appointments”, and as a result, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claim limitations merely cover managing interactions between people, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Moreover, as discussed in the 35 USC 112 rejection above, the specification does not seem to support “wherein the anomaly detection model adaptively improves by updating…”, which is relied upon by Applicant to support the assertion that amended claim language “demonstrates a technical improvement to the computing system itself, rather than merely applying an abstract idea using generic components”.
Additionally, Applicant’s argument that “the adaptive anomaly detection model improves its performance over time as it ingests dynamic data from the relational database, which enhances the computing system's ability to process heterogeneous scheduling data and generate accurate detections and forecasts”, seems to be mere conjecture by Applicant, not supported or described in specification.
Following, under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Besides the abstract idea, the claims include a user interface of a computing system, a relational database, wherein the information is continuously extracted from the relational database according to a predetermined time interval, and one or more processors and at least one memory storing instructions. Here, the claimed visualization dashboard does not seem to involve anything other than the application of a known type of interface in its normal, routine, and ordinary capacity.
The user interface of a computing system, relational database, wherein the information is continuously extracted from the relational database according to a predetermined time interval, and one or more processors and at least one memory storing instructions in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use computer components as a tool (i.e., a user interface of a computing system, a relational database, wherein the information is continuously extracted from the relational database according to a predetermined time interval, and one or more processors and at least one memory storing instructions). There is no change to the computers and/or other technology recited in the claims, thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, on a user interface of a computing system, a relational database, wherein the information is continuously extracted from the relational database according to a predetermined time interval, and one or more processors and at least one memory storing instructions.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Conclusion
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 ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 February 3, 2026