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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 12/30/2025.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 1-4, 7-11, 14, and 21-24 are amended. Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14, and 21-24 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on 12/30/2025 have been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 Arguments: Applicant’s arguments (Remarks at pgs. 7-9) concerning the §101 rejection of claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-14 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claims “are directed to a practical application of reassigning computing resources to approve requests to turn off computing resources by supplementing the resulting under-assignment of computing resources to achieve a required level of computing resources to perform their processing jobs” (Remarks at pg. 7).
In response, the argument lacks merit for a number of reasons. In particular, applicant has not identified the additional elements that, individually or as an ordered combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Next, applicant has not shown that the reassignment of computing resources provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, applies the abstract idea with a particular machine, or effects a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies/uses apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, it is noted that merely reassigning computing resources, such as by “automatically assigning one or more of the auxiliary computing resources among one or more of the computer systems,” as recited by independent claims 1/8, does not actually invoke, modify, or utilize the auxiliary computing resources that are assigned since the acts of approving and assigning can be done by a human mentally or verbally, e.g., authorizing extra servers to be used for the next shift, though without any discernible act, function, or requirement for controlling or using the auxiliary computing resources within the scope of the claim. Although it is presumed that such assigned auxiliary computing resources can/would be used based on the approval, such is not required within the scope of the claim. Accordingly, the reassignment (i.e., assigning one or more of the auxiliary computing resources) falls under the scope of the abstract idea itself and therefore is not an additional element to be evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two, and as a result, this limitation cannot therefore serve to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
In response to applicant’s argument that assigning computing resources distributes hardware resources, such as the computing power (claim 21), computer storage (claim 22), and virtual computing machines (claim 23) and thus provide a practical application of improving distribution of hardware and software computing resources (Remarks at pg. 8), the Examiner reiterates the same rationale as set forth above, in particular that merely assigning resources, regardless of the type (i.e., power, storage VMs), does not actually use, invoke, or require control of these resources, but instead mere assignment can be accomplished via a plan, decision, allocation, or the like, such as verbally, by a human judgment, or the like, and therefore no improvement in distribution of hardware/software is achieved since no hardware/software is impacted in any discernible or meaningful manner.
In response to applicant’s suggestion of an improvement to “distribution of hardware and software computing resources in a computer system…to complete processing jobs,” the Examiner notes that the claimed invention does not require actual distribution of computing resources or completion of processing jobs, but instead focuses on descriptive information regarding assignment and distribution in relation to a processing job. Accordingly, with respect to applicant’s reliance on improved distribution of computing resources or completion of processing jobs to support the argument, it is noted that the claims do not recite or require any actual step/function to distribute computer resources or complete processing jobs, and it would be improper to import these limitations into the claims. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also, CollegeNet, Inc. v. Apply Yourself Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (while the specification can be examined for proper context of a claim term, limitations from the specification will not be imported into the claims).
In response Applicant’s citation to the CAFC’s Uniloc and McRO decisions and suggestion that the claimed invention “provides specific technology improvements, as in McRO” (Remarks at pgs. 8-9), the Examiner notes that the fact patterns and claimed inventions under consideration in these cases share virtually no similarities with the instant case. For example, the claims in McRO were directed to a technological improvement over existing, manual 3-D animation techniques by using unconventional rules that relate sub-sequences or phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice, which transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by humans into a mathematically automated process executed on computers. No similar subject matter, technical field, or improvement appears to be contemplated in Applicant’s disclosure or achieved through Applicant’s claims. Notably, exemplary claim 1 of the McRO ‘576 patent applied the inventive solution in the final limitation of the claim by “applying said final applying said final stream of output morph weight sets to a sequence of animated characters to produce lip synchronization and facial expression control of said animated characters,” which is clearly a technological result/solution that was recognized by the CAFC as “a specific asserted improvement in computer animation.” In contrast, Applicant’s claim 1 yields a result of “approve the request for time off for one or more computing resources and automatically assigning one or more of the auxiliary computing resources among one or more of the computer systems,” which, in contrast to McRO’s solution, neither invokes nor improves upon any field of technology, but instead describes activity that, but for the generic “apply it” computer/automatic implementation, could be performed by human mental evaluation or judgment, such as with the aid of pen and paper (e.g., a schedule that lists one or more auxiliary computing resources assigned for a time period).
Lastly, in response to applicant’s suggestion that “the claims recite a specific series of steps” (Remarks at pg. 9), even assuming arguendo that the claims are considered a “specific series of steps,” such specificity or novelty alone is insufficient to render claims as eligible. We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating §102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec). Accordingly, applicant’s argument relying on the alleged specificity of certain claim elements is insufficient to render the claims eligible.
For the reasons provided above along with the reasons set forth below in the updated §101 rejection, the arguments and amendments are not sufficient to overcome the rejection.
Response to §103 Arguments: Applicant’s arguments (Remarks at pgs. 9-10) concerning the §103 rejection applied to the claims in the previous office have been considered, but are primarily raised in support of the amendments to independent claims 1/8, which are believed to be fully addressed in the new ground of rejection set forth below under 35 USC §103.
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 1-4, 7-11, 14, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the subject matter eligibility guidelines set forth in MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.03), it is first noted that the claimed method (claims 1-4, 7, and 21-24) and system (claims 8-11 and 14) are each directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process and machine, respectively). Accordingly, claims 1-4, 7-11, 14, and 21-24 satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04), it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping by setting forth activities that, but for the generic computer implementation, could be performed mentally by a human (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below, whereas the additional elements are identified in plain text and are separately evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below:
when a request is received for time off for one or more computing resources during a schedule, identifying, by a computing device, based on data describing a first assignment of computing resources and based on a first set of rules, one or more time periods of the first assignment of resources for which there is an under-assignment of computing resources for a processing job during the one or more time periods (The “identifying” step describes activity that, but for the generic computer implementation, could be performed as a mental process, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
upon identifying the under-assignment of computing resources, automatically generating, by the computing device, using data describing one or more auxiliary computing resources and one or more assignment rules, data describing a second assignment of computing resources which assigns and distributes one or more of the auxiliary computing resources to the identified one or more time periods, the distribution of one or more of the auxiliary computing resources between one or more computer systems, wherein the distribution of one or more of the auxiliary computing resources stabilizes performance and achieves a required level of computing resources of one or more of the computer systems for the processing job during the one or more time periods, and wherein each of the auxiliary resources associated with the one or more of the assignment rules used to automatically create the second assignment of computing resources, taking into account a required number and priority of rules to be used (This step describes activity that, but for the generic computer implementation, could be performed as a mental process, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion. It is further noted that using the label “computing” to describe the resources is descriptive data used in the context of this claim step [i.e., data describing…] and, regardless of the details described by the data, this descriptive data does not alter the nature of the “generating” step itself, and it is noted that none of the “computing resources” are actually required to perform any step/function in the scope of the claim, and similar rationale applies to “the distribution of one or more…” since no computer resources are actually distributed or used to perform any function, but instead this language is descriptive in so far as it relates to data merely describing a second assignment of resources),
wherein the one or more time periods are one or more time periods in the schedule for which there is the under assignment of computing resources (This limitation describes activity that, but for the generic computer implementation, could be performed as a mental process, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion); and
approving the request for time off for one or more computing resources and automatically assigning one or more of the auxiliary computing resources among one or more of the computer systems (The “approving” and “assigning” steps describe activity that, but for the generic computer/automatic implementation, could be performed as a mental process, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, e.g., a human being mentally, verbally, or with pen/paper indicating approval of a time off request [e.g., a human utterance of “I hereby grant your request to turn off your desktop computer and to instead perform work on your laptop computer” and/or “I hereby assign the extra computers to be used for work tasks next week.”]).
Claim 8 recites similar limitations to those recited by claim 1, and has therefore been determined to recite the same abstract idea as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 1/8 recite the additional elements of computing device, automatically, at least one processor and memory, different computers, computing resource. The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Furthermore, even though the limitation of “assigned by different computers based on computing resource availability” merely invokes the use of generic computers, it is further noted that this feature is recited at a high level of generality and very generically applies load balancing of activities to computer-implemented tasks, though without improving upon the computer(s) or any technology, and without imposing meaningful limitation on the claim. In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include. Independent claims 1/8 recite the additional elements of computing device, automatically, at least one processor and memory, different computers, computing resource. These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions/software to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment, the internet, online) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the additional elements covering generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (engine) merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Furthermore, even though the limitation of “assigned by different computers based on computing resource availability” merely invokes the use of generic computers, it is further noted that this feature is recited at a high level of generality and very generically applies load balancing of activities to computer-implemented tasks, and Official Notice is taken that such activity is well-understood, routine and conventional in the art, e.g., load balancing, distributing, computing., and therefore this feature does not add significantly more to the claims.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, and 21-24 recite the same abstract idea as independent claims 1/8 along with further steps/details falling under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping by setting forth activities that, but for the generic computer implementation, could be performed mentally by a human (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). With respect to claims 7/14, the step for distributing, by the computing device, the data describing the second assignment of computing resources to one or more other computing devices has been evaluated as an additional element, but is considered insignificant extra-solution (data output) activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), and when further evaluated under Step 2B, such extra-solution activity has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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). It is further noted that the “wherein” statements in claims 21-24 describing the computing resources as comprising computer power (claim 21), computer storage (claim 22), or virtual computing machines (claim 23) relate back to the resources recited in the identifying and automatically generating steps in claim 1, which fall under the scope of the abstract idea itself such that the claim language referring to computer power, computer storage, and virtual machines in claims 21-23 is merely used to describe the type of resources involved in the request and the identifying of periods and generating data describing a second assignment, whereas no step/limitation impacts, manipulates, modifies, or controls computer power, computer storage, or virtual machines, but instead these terms are used as descriptive labels merely narrowing the abstract idea itself and are not additional elements.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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 1-4, 7-11, 14, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Ouimette et al. (US Patent No. 9,426,291, hereinafter “Ouimette”) in view of Sarlay (US 2008/0300953) in view of Bahramshahry et al. (US 2020/0026564, hereinafter “Bahramshahry”).
Claims 1/8: As per claim 1, Ouimette teaches a computer implemented method of updating a first assignment of resources (col. 3 lines 57-62 and Fig. 26: may be implemented as a computer-controlled apparatus, a method, a computing system, or as an article of manufacture such as a computer-readable storage medium), the method comprising:
when a request is received for time off for one or more … resources during a schedule, identifying, by a computing device, based on data describing a first assignment of … resources and based on a first set of rules, one or more time periods of the first assignment of resources for which there is an under-assignment of … resources for a processing job during the one or more time periods (col. 3 lines 19-42, col. 29 lines 7-11, col. 39 lines 42-60, and Figs. 11-14:e.g., roster template module determines a deficiency exists in Operation 740 in that the time interval from 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on the weekday requires thirty-five agents to work to handle the number of communications forecasted to be received [i.e., data describing a first assignment of resources and a first set of rules, for a processing job during the one or more time periods]; Turning to FIG. 11, a table is provided showing a surplus or deficiency of allocated resources for each time interval for handling the expected inbound calls [i.e., processing jobs] based on scheduling seven agents for the morning shift and ten agents for the afternoon shift. Accordingly, seventeen agents are scheduled to work from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. since the two shifts overlap during this time. In this instance, deficiencies exists during the 9:45 a.m. (−6 1110), 11:45 a.m. (−6 1115), 12:00 p.m. (−1 1120)…time intervals because the number of agents scheduled to work do not meet the number of agents needed to handle the number of calls forecasted to be received during these time intervals);
upon identifying the under-assignment of … resources, automatically generating, by the computing device, using data describing one or more auxiliary … resources and one or more assignment rules, data describing a second assignment of … resources which assigns and distributes one or more of the auxiliary … resources to the identified one or more time periods … (col. 43 lines 9-11: roster template module could attempt to address the deficiencies 1810, 1815 [i.e., the under-assignment of resources] by scheduling five additional agents for the afternoon shift [i.e., using one or more auxiliary resources and one or more assignment rules to generate data of a second assignment of resources to a time period]; See also, col. 20 lines 4-6: roster template module may determine to move [i.e., assign/distribute] two agents from a different shift to the shift with the deficiency to address the deficiency [using one or more auxiliary resources and one or more assignment rules to generate data of a second assignment of resources to a time period]; See also, col. 42 lines 53-56: roster template module can address the deficiency by adding [i.e., assigning and distributing] seven more agents to the roster template for the morning shift),
and wherein each of the auxiliary … resources is associated with the one or more of the assignment rules used to automatically create the second assignment of … resources, taking into account a required number and priority of rules to be used (col. 3 lines 22-42; col. 14 lines 24-34; col. 14 line 61 – col. 15 line 7; col. 40 lines 8-11: e.g., Upon determining the deficiency should be addressed, the one or more shifts identifying the agent resources to schedule [i.e., auxiliary resources associated with assignment rules used to create second assignment of resources] are revised for the roster template so that the one or more requirements set forth by the at least one defined parameter are met and a second deficiency is not created in which the agent resources identified in the revised one or more shifts to schedule do not meet the first number of agent resources needed to handle the first number of inbound communications forecasted to be received during the time period the campaign is to be conducted causing one or more requirements set forth by a second defined parameter not to be met [i.e., taking into account a required number and priority of rules to be used]; contact center may set a parameter (e.g., a rule) that any deficiency greater than fifteen percent with respect to staffing a particular shift for a lower prioritized channel of communication be addressed [i.e., taking into account a required number and priority of rules to be used]. Therefore, in the example, the contact center determines the deficiency with respect to the second channel of communication for the first shift should be addressed since the deficiency is greater than fifteen percent (e.g., the deficiency is 5/30 or 17%); contact center may have set a parameter (e.g., defined a rule) that any deficiency greater than ten percent with respect to staffing a particular shift for a top prioritized channel of communication should be addressed. Therefore, as long as twenty-seven agents are scheduled to work during the second shift then both the first and second channels of communication will be adequately staffed while meeting the contact center’s deficiency parameters. Thus, the contact center can address the deficiency in the first shift by moving a staff member from the second shift to the first shift [i.e., auxiliary resources associated with assignment rules used to create second assignment of resources] resulting in a total of twenty-six agents working the first shift for the given day and thus lowering the deficiency for the first shift to below the fifteen percent deficiency parameter threshold; The contact center has also defined another parameter that states that any deficiencies to be addressed based on the first parameter [which is one prioritized rule] can be ignored if the following two time intervals have surpluses with a sum greater than ten [which is prioritization of one rule over another, thus taking into account a required number and priority of rules to be used]),
wherein the one or more time periods are one or more time periods in the schedule for which there is the under assignment of … resources (col. 3 lines 19-42 and col. 39 lines 42-60 and Figs. 11-14 and 17-29: e.g., showing a surplus or deficiency [i.e., under assignment] of allocated resources for each time interval for handling the expected inbound calls based on scheduling seven agents for the morning shift and ten agents for the afternoon shift; number of agents scheduled to work do not meet the number of agents needed to handle the number of calls forecasted to be received during these time intervals [i.e., under assignment of resources]. The deficiencies represent the number of agents understaffed for the particular time interval; module determines a deficiency [i.e., under assignment or resources] exists in Operation 740 in that the time interval from 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on the weekday requires thirty-five agents to work to handle the number of communications forecasted to be received); and
approving the request for time off for one or more computing resources and automatically assigning one or more of the auxiliary … resources … (col. 40 lines 41-46 and col. 43 lines 9-19 and Figs. 2-3: e.g., roster template module initially attempts to address the occurrence of deficiencies by moving agents from the afternoon shift to the morning shift. Specifically, the roster template module attempts to provide one additional agent to the morning shift to lower the deficiencies; See also, col. 16 lines 51-55, describing automatic execution of the disclosed features – e.g., For example, the flow diagram shown in FIG. 3 may correspond to operations carried out by a processor in a system, such as the WFM 155, as it executes the manage schedule module stored in the system's volatile and/or nonvolatile memory).
Ouimette does not teach:
when a request is received for time off for one or more computing resources during a schedule;
computing resources;
the distribution of one or more of the auxiliary computing resources between one or more computer systems, wherein the distribution of one or more of the auxiliary computing resources stabilizes performance and achieves a required level of computing resources of one or more of the computer systems for the processing job during the one or more time periods;
approving the request for time off for one or more computing resources;
computing resources among one or more of the computer systems.
Sarlay teaches:
when a request is received for time off for one or more … resources during a schedule (pars. 6 and 26: e.g., Managing time off requests; Time off rules determine how many agents can take time off on a given day, whether partial-day time off is allowed, and date ranges for which time off can be requested);
approving the request for time off for one or more … resources(pars. 6 and 24: e.g., using objective, rules-based approvals; Once vacation time is approved, the system automatically includes granted vacation time when creating schedules).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ouimette with Sarlay because the references are analogous since each is directed to computer-based features for resource planning and assignment, which is within applicant’s field of updating resource assignments, and because modifying the teachings of Ouimette with Sarlay’s feature for managing request and approval of time off requests, as claimed, would serve the motivation to streamline resource time-off requests through rule-based management of the requests and thereby ensure that a contact center does not risk being understaffed (Sarlay at par. 6), and would also promote compliance with expected quality of service and service level targets (Bahramshahry at par. 90); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Ouimette and Sarlay do not teach:
computing resources;
the distribution of one or more of the auxiliary computing resources between one or more computer systems, wherein the distribution of one or more of the auxiliary computing resources stabilizes performance and achieves a required level of computing resources of one or more of the computer systems for the processing job during the one or more time periods;
computing resources among one or more of the computer systems.
Bahramshahry teaches:
computing resources (pars. 7, 64, 80, and 133: e.g., computing architecture may be utilized to supplement features, functionality, or computing resources for the database system 185 or alternatively, a computing grid, or a pool of work servers, or some combination of hosted computing architectures may be utilized to carry out the computational workload and processing demanded of the host organization; scheduling service 145 provides means by which to dynamically allocate compute capacity at anytime, such as allocating CPU, RAM, IP, etc., as necessary for performing a specific type of work according to need; assigning more or less computing resources to any given allocation vessel);
the distribution of one or more of the auxiliary computing resources between one or more computer systems, wherein the distribution of one or more of the auxiliary computing resources stabilizes performance and achieves a required level of computing resources of one or more of the computer systems for the processing job during the one or more time periods (pars. 80, 95, 136, 300, 613, 645, and 661: e.g., scheduling service 145 provides means by which to dynamically allocate compute capacity at anytime, such as allocating CPU, RAM, IP, etc., as necessary for performing a specific type of work according to need; there are two principle resources accessible to the scheduling service. The compute cloud 105 provides computing architecture upon which workload tasks may be performed and the CI cloud 110 is where the work that needs to be performed is discovered such that it may be scheduled for execution; there may be a minimum and maximum SLT for each workload type. Therefore, the scheduler will seek to provide to every allocation vessel 146 at least a minimum SLT allocation 141 while “pouring” or “filling” the additional available capacity through middle round allocations 142A-142B during iterative processing of the scheduler without surpassing the maximum SLT allocation; modify where at least one each workload is scheduled for execution by specifying a different one of the computing resources to load balance execution of the workload tasks across the plurality of computing resources; scheduling service may further seek to reduce the risk of producing bad results from the repeated execution and therefore the scheduler will decide to execute the workload on a different cloud that has been more stable; scheduling service may nevertheless migrate the workload execution to the different cloud to avoid repeating the same problem; See also, par. 613: scheduling service implements a decoupled scheduler with distinct phases which operates on the design principle of eventual consistency);
computing resources among one or more of the computer systems (pars. 7, 64, 80, 133, 163, and 235: e.g., various computing clouds 235 or computing resources accessible to the scheduler, such as the quantity of RAM, CPUs, vCPUs, pricing, software versions, base images, operating systems; executing via any of the computing resources which were assigned to the computing resources; computing architecture may be utilized to supplement features, functionality, or computing resources for the database system 185 or alternatively, a computing grid, or a pool of work servers, or some combination of hosted computing architectures may be utilized to carry out the computational workload and processing demanded of the host organization; scheduling service 145 provides means by which to dynamically allocate compute capacity at anytime, such as allocating CPU, RAM, IP, etc., as necessary for performing a specific type of work according to need; assigning more or less computing resources to any given allocation vessel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ouimette/Sarlay with Bahramshahry because the references are analogous since each is directed to computer-based features for resource planning and assignment, which is within applicant’s field of updating resource assignments, and because modifying the teachings of Ouimette/Sarlay with Bahramshahry’s resources in the form of computing resources and distribution of auxiliary computing resources between computer systems to stabilize performance during a processing job, as claimed, would serve the motivation to optimize utilization of resources through load balancing (Bahramshahry at par. 6) such as to improve computing efficiency while also delivering greater compliance with expected quality of service and service level targets (Bahramshahry at par. 90); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 8 is directed to a system comprising a computing device with processor/memory for performing substantially similar limitations as those recited by claim 1 and addressed above. Ouimette, in view of Sarlay/Bahramshahry, teaches a system for performing the limitations above (col. 3 lines 57-62 and Fig. 26: may be implemented as a computer-controlled apparatus, a method, a computing system, or as an article of manufacture such as a computer-readable storage medium; See also, Sarlay at pars. 25-26 and Fig. 1; See also, Bahramshahry at par. 59), and claim 8 is therefore rejected using the same references and for substantially the same reasons as set forth above.
Claims 2/9: Ouimette further teaches wherein the data describing the one or more auxiliary … resources comprises an indication of an availability of the one or more auxiliary … resources for the identified one or more time periods (col. 30 lines 4-12: roster template module may determine to move two agents from a different shift to the shift with the deficiency to address the deficiency [i.e., the two agents from a different shift are indicated as being available to be moved]. For example, a second shift may be included in the roster template for the particular weekday that runs from 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. that currently has thirty-seven staff identified for the shift. Accordingly, the roster template module may adjust the roster template in operation 755 and move two of the agents from this shift to the shift with the deficiency; See also, col. 7 lines 21-22: the CM 150 may keep track of the agents who are available; See also, col. 8 lines 5-8: The WFM 155 then applies the forecasts and information about available agents to generate work rosters of agents (e.g., schedules); col. 45 lines 2-4: agent monitoring module to determine which agents should be logged in and available according to the schedule; See also, col. 40 lines 41-46: roster template module initially attempts to address the occurrence of deficiencies by moving [available] agents from the afternoon shift to the morning shift. Specifically, the roster template module attempts to provide one additional agent to the morning shift to lower the deficiencies), but does not teach the resources as being in the form of computing resources.
Bahramshahry teaches computing resources (pars. 7, 64, 80, and 133: e.g., computing architecture may be utilized to supplement features, functionality, or computing resources for the database system 185 or alternatively, a computing grid, or a pool of work servers, or some combination of hosted computing architectures may be utilized to carry out the computational workload and processing demanded of the host organization; scheduling service 145 provides means by which to dynamically allocate compute capacity at anytime, such as allocating CPU, RAM, IP, etc., as necessary for performing a specific type of work according to need; assigning more or less computing resources to any given allocation vessel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ouimette/Sarlay/Bahramshahry such that the resources are computing resources, as taught by Bahramshahry, in order to extend Ouimette’s resource management features beyond human resources but to computing resources as well, thus serving the motivation to manage contact center operations in accordance with various resource and cost limits (Ouimette at col. 14 lines 46-47) and to optimize utilization of resources through load balancing (Bahramshahry at par. 6); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 3/10: Ouimette further teaches wherein the data describing the one or more auxiliary … resources comprises, for at least one of the one or more auxiliary … resources, an indication of at least one assignment rule (col. 14 lines 22-67 and Figs. 2, 7, 11-14, and 17-19: At this point, a determination is then made as to whether the deficiency should be addressed in Step 245. For instance, in various embodiments, the contact center may set parameters that are used to evaluate whether the deficiency should be addressed or not. For example, the contact center may set a parameter (e.g., a rule) that any deficiency greater than fifteen percent with respect to staffing a particular shift [assignment rule]; See also, col. 40 lines 41-46: roster template module initially attempts to address the occurrence of deficiencies by moving agents from the afternoon shift to the morning shift [i.e., assignment rule that moves agents between different shifts]. Specifically, the roster template module attempts to provide one additional agent to the morning shift to lower the deficiencies [assignment rule]), but does not teach the resources as being in the form of computing resources.
Bahramshahry teaches computing resources (pars. 7, 64, 80, and 133: e.g., computing architecture may be utilized to supplement features, functionality, or computing resources for the database system 185 or alternatively, a computing grid, or a pool of work servers, or some combination of hosted computing architectures may be utilized to carry out the computational workload and processing demanded of the host organization; scheduling service 145 provides means by which to dynamically allocate compute capacity at anytime, such as allocating CPU, RAM, IP, etc., as necessary for performing a specific type of work according to need; assigning more or less computing resources to any given allocation vessel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ouimette/Sarlay/Bahramshahry such that the resources are computing resources, as taught by Bahramshahry, in order to extend Ouimette’s resource management features beyond human resources but to computing resources as well, thus serving the motivation to manage contact center operations in accordance with various resource and cost limits (Ouimette at col. 14 lines 46-47) and to optimize utilization of resources through load balancing (Bahramshahry at par. 6); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 4/11: Ouimette further teaches wherein the data describing one or more auxiliary … resources comprises, for at least one of the one or more auxiliary … resources, an indication of a plurality of assignment rules, and wherein the second assignment of … resources is automatically generated in accordance with a maximal number of the plurality of assignment rules (col. 3 lines 19-42: roster template is evaluated to identify whether a deficiency exists in which the agent resources identified in the one or more shifts to schedule do not meet the second number of agent resources needed to handle the second number of communications to receive using the third channel of communication…Upon determining the deficiency should be addressed, the one or more shifts identifying the agent resources to schedule are revised for the roster template so that the one or more requirements set forth by the at least one defined parameter are met and a second deficiency is not created in which the agent resources identified in the revised one or more shifts to schedule do not meet the first number of agent resources needed to handle the first number of inbound communications forecasted to be received during the time period the campaign is to be conducted causing one or more requirements set forth by a second defined parameter not to be met; See also, col. 9 lines 6-15: campaign is defined by parameters such as…skills needed by those handling the communications (e.g., skills needed by the agents calling the parties on the list). In addition, other parameters may identify one or more goals or objectives to be achieved; See also, col. 24 line 61 – col. 25 line 10: default parameters for the selected campaign if desired. Therefore, in these particular embodiments, the user edits the campaign's parameters such as, for example, the goals (e.g., target type and/or target value) for the campaign, the time period for which the campaign will be conducted, and the staff requirements (e.g., minimum and/or maximum agents required) for the campaign. Further, in particular embodiments, the user may indicate whether to enforce minimum staffing requirements for the campaign. If so, the forecast module allocates the minimum number of staff (e.g., agents) for all time intervals and/or queues in the forecast; col. 12 lines 39-41: forecasts may be generated using revised parameters, goals, and/or objectives until a satisfactory prediction is obtained; See also, col. 16 lines 19-27: campaign's requirements are being adequately addressed for the second shift, they are not being adequately addressed for the first shift. As noted earlier, the deficiency parameters are met as long as the second shift has at least twenty-seven agents working the shift. Therefore, in this instance, the roster template may be revised to move an agent from the second shift to the first shift and the schedule may be revised), but does not teach the resources as being in the form of computing resources.
Bahramshahry teaches computing resources (pars. 7, 64, 80, and 133: e.g., computing architecture may be utilized to supplement features, functionality, or computing resources for the database system 185 or alternatively, a computing grid, or a pool of work servers, or some combination of hosted computing architectures may be utilized to carry out the computational workload and processing demanded of the host organization; scheduling service 145 provides means by which to dynamically allocate compute capacity at anytime, such as allocating CPU, RAM, IP, etc., as necessary for performing a specific type of work according to need; assigning more or less computing resources to any given allocation vessel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ouimette/Sarlay/Bahramshahry such that the resources are computing resources, as taught by Bahramshahry, in order to extend Ouimette’s resource management features beyond human resources but to computing resources as well, thus serving the motivation to manage contact center operations in accordance with various resource and cost limits (Ouimette at col. 14 lines 46-47) and to optimize utilization of resources through load balancing (Bahramshahry at par. 6); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 7/14: Ouimette further teaches distributing, by the computing device, the data describing the second assignment of … resources to one or more other computing devices (col. 18 lines 3-23: (76) Once the schedule has been generated and saved, the user may be presented with one or more screens to implement the schedule, shown as Operation 355. Depending on the embodiment, implementation of the schedule may involve different processing operations. For instance, in one embodiment, the schedule may simply be posted so that staff may view the schedule to determine when they are to work during the time the campaign is to be conducted. However, in other embodiments, the schedule (and/or information from the schedule) may be uploaded to one or more other business enterprise systems in the contact center to facilitate further functionality during the time the campaign is to be conducted. For example, in particular embodiments, supervisors may make use of monitoring systems to ensure agents are adhering to their schedules and working efficiently during the campaign. Information taken from the schedule (such as, for instance, which agents are scheduled to work during a particular shift) may facilitate such monitoring. In other embodiments, the schedule may be communicated to individual staff members scheduled to work; col. 36 lines 26-36: schedule module determines whether any such parameters have been revised. If so, the schedule module receives the parameters, at Operation 830, and re-generates the schedule based on the revisions, in Operation 820. This process continues until the user is satisfied with the schedule. At that point, the user chooses to save the schedule and the schedule module saves the schedule in the appropriate location, shown as Operation 835; See also, col. 5 lines 28-30 and Figs. 1 and 26: may receive or place a communication using a device such as a desktop or laptop computer 110a, a smart phone 110c, mobile phone, tablet, or other mobile device), but does not teach the resources as being in the form of computing resources.
Bahramshahry teaches computing resources (pars. 7, 64, 80, and 133: e.g., computing architecture may be utilized to supplement features, functionality, or computing resources for the database system 185 or alternatively, a computing grid, or a pool of work servers, or some combination of hosted computing architectures may be utilized to carry out the computational workload and processing demanded of the host organization; scheduling service 145 provides means by which to dynamically allocate compute capacity at anytime, such as allocating CPU, RAM, IP, etc., as necessary for performing a specific type of work according to need; assigning more or less computing resources to any given allocation vessel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ouimette/Sarlay/Bahramshahry such that the resources are computing resources, as taught by Bahramshahry, in order to extend Ouimette’s resource management features beyond human resources but to computing resources as well, thus serving the motivation to manage contact center operations in accordance with various resource and cost limits (Ouimette at col. 14 lines 46-47) and to optimize utilization of resources through load balancing (Bahramshahry at par. 6); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 21: Ouimette does not teach the limitation of claim 21.
Bahramshahry teaches wherein the computing resources comprise computing power (pars. 285, 390, 434, and 571: e.g., plurality of resource characteristics for each of the plurality of computing resources identified include one or more of CPU type, quantity of CPU cores, memory type, memory quantity, licenses, operating system type, virtual machine (VM) execution policy, pricing data, minimum workload allocation, maximum workload allocation, electrical power data; reactively allocate the sub-parts of a workload in a way that optimizes consumption of available compute resource; VM may be snapshotted in a powered-off state or in a powered-on state, thus potentially saving the time of the boot sequence; CPU consumption under a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include, in the combination of Ouimette/Sarlay/Bahramshahry, Bahramshahry’s resource in the form of computing power, as claimed, in order to serve the motivation to manage contact center operations within constraints such as resource and cost limits (Ouimette at col. 14 lines 46-47) and to optimize utilization of resources through load balancing (Bahramshahry at par. 6); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 22: Ouimette does not teach the limitation of claim 22.
Bahramshahry teaches wherein the computing resources comprise computer storage (pars. 5, 133, 285, and 498: e.g., scheduling process applies available hardware resources such as processors, memory; allocation vessel which includes any number of computing resources capable of performing work including, for instance, a base image, storage; plurality of resource characteristics for each of the plurality of computing resources identified include one or more of CPU type, quantity of CPU cores, memory type, memory; scheduling service calculates what resources are required to process the workloads P1, P2, and P3. Above and beyond requirements associated with physical resources such minimum memory).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include, in the combination of Ouimette/Sarlay/Bahramshahry, Bahramshahry’s resource in the form of computing storage, as claimed, in order to serve the motivation to manage contact center operations within constraints such as resource and cost limits (Ouimette at col. 14 lines 46-47) and to optimize utilization of resources through load balancing (Bahramshahry at par. 6); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 23: Ouimette does not teach the limitation of claim 23.
Bahramshahry teaches wherein the computing resources comprise virtual computing machines (pars. 51, 84, 221, 381, 434, 489, 495, 500, and 504: e.g., implementing a scheduler and workload manager that identifies and consumes global virtual resources supported by a processor and a memory to execute such functionality; VM is therefore provisioned with the necessary configuration and resources and then the state of the virtual machine is saved as a VM snapshot; There is also depicted a virtual resource pool 2520 having therein several virtual resources; once the virtual resources are available again (as updated within the local view) the scheduler in following scheduling heartbeats may therefore re-allocate those same virtual resources to new or different workloads).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include, in the combination of Ouimette/Sarlay/Bahramshahry, Bahramshahry’s resource in the form of virtual computing machines, as claimed, would serve the motivation to manage contact center operations within constraints such as resource and cost limits (Ouimette at col. 14 lines 46-47) and to optimize utilization of resources such as virtual resource pool more efficiently (Bahramshahry at par. 515); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 24: Claim 24 recites the limitation of using an assignment rule if the assignment rule matches an under-assignment of computing resources. However, in view of the “if” condition, this limitation is conditional/ optional because, under a broadest scenario (i.e., a scenario in which the assignment rule does not match an under-assignment of resources), the claim need not invoke the step for “using an assignment rule." Accordingly, the step is not required to be performed since a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim covers a scenario in which the “using” is not required to be performed. See Ex parte Katz, 2010-006083, 2011 WL 514314, at *4 (BPAI 2011) (non-precedential) (citing In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see also, Ex parte Masuda, 2016 WL 3036388 (PTAB May 11, 2016). If Applicant wishes to require the step of “using an assignment rule” to be positively performed within the scope of claim 24, the Examiner suggests amending the claim to remove the “if” condition. Nevertheless, even if amended to require the step of “using an assignment rule” based on a rule matching performed responsive to under-assignment of resources, Ouimette, in view of Sarlay/Bahramshahry teaches this limitation (Ouimette at col. 14 lines 26-67; col. 29 lines 16-24: e.g., contact center may set a parameter (e.g., a rule) that any deficiency greater than fifteen percent with respect to staffing a particular shift for a lower prioritized channel of communication be addressed. Therefore, in the example, the contact center determines the deficiency with respect to the second channel of communication for the first shift should be addressed since the deficiency is greater than fifteen percent (e.g., the deficiency is 5/30 or 17%); For instance, in the example, the second shift on the given day in the roster template may require thirty agents to meet the needs of the first channel of communication while the time intervals in the forecast for the second channel of communication that occur over the same shift (second shift) on the given day may require the same number of agents (thirty) to meet the needs of the second channel of communication; in this instance, the contact center requires that at least eighty percent of the staff required by the forecast for any time interval be actually staffed for the particular time interval. Therefore, the roster template module determines the deficiency does not need to be addressed since the roster template provides for thirty agents during the time interval, which equals to eighty-six percent of the staff required for the interval. It is noted that Bahramshahry teaches the resources in the form of computing resources in pars. 7, 64, 80, and 133, as discussed above in the rejection of parent claim 1, which is incorporated herein).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
McDaniel et al. (US 2014/0200941): discloses features for identifying and assigning resources based on identified resource deficiencies (at least pars. 185: e.g., agent resource deficiency of three agent-hours has been identified for a time period of 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, August 19.sup.th. Thus, three agents are needed to be recalled to work one hour each for this time period).
Dvorscak, Jr. et al. (US 2020/0394594): discloses features for optimizing distribution of incentive-budget for additional time interval allocation in a multi-week work schedule, including features for forecasting and resolving understaffing scenarios (at least pars. 6, 50, 77, and 78).
deSilva et al. (US 2005/0004828): discloses features for preference scheduling of staffing resources, including scheduling features for reducing understaffing (par. 97).
Determining optimal workforce size and schedule at the retail store considering overstaffing and understaffing costs Pandey, Peeyush; Gajjar, Hasmukh; Shah, Bhavin J.. Computers & Industrial Engineering 161 : 107656. Elsevier B.V. (2021): discloses modeling techniques to address problems in the realm of workforce scheduling, including problems involving a large number of flexibilities, and generating an optimal schedule that decreases understaffing.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Timothy A. Padot whose telephone number is 571.270.1252. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30 - 5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571.270.5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TIMOTHY PADOT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
02/05/2026