DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on January 6, 2026 has been entered. No claims have been amended. Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, “The Applicant asserts that the cited operations may not be generated by a user but by the processors which operate the Flexible Activity Requestor (FAR) module. Hence, the claim does not recite any method of organizing human activity, such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Thus, the claim is eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception.” (Page 7 of Applicant’s response) Applicant continues to argue that “[t]he scheduling of a flexible activity in a workforce management system may not be considered as organizing human activity but a technical artifact. When the computerized-method for reducing understaffing conditions by enabling scheduling of a flexible activity request in a WFM system is generating a schedule its operations rely on CPU cycles, memory management and data structures. It's operating by processing inputs, such as a date range for the flexible activity and preconfigured period to be assigned to one or more agents and then having the SRM system retrieve preferences of future activity requests in the preconfigured period from the database of agents preferences and forward it to the Schedule Manager MS. A scheduler MS selects a date which is in the entered date range for each future activity request of the one or more future activity requests based on: a. the retrieved preferences of future activity requests; and b. staffing plans retrieved from a staffing data database which is a technical procedure which may not be operated by a user or in the human mind.” (Page 7 of Applicant’s response)
As admitted by Applicant, the claimed invention is meant to reduce understaffing conditions. Applicant’s Specification clearly states that the disclosed invention is directed to “scheduling a flexible activity request in a workforce management system” (Spec: ¶ 1). The Specification repeatedly references a workforce, agents, staffing levels, and other terminology that (based on a broadest reasonable interpretation) encompass human beings. Scheduling people is an example of managing people (i.e., organizing human activity).
Applicant’s description of the invention relying on “CPU cycles, memory management and data structures” is simply a description of how many general purpose processing devices operate. Aside from the high level recitations of the generic processing elements in the claims, the underlying data gathering, analysis, decision-making, and transmission of information could indeed be performed by a human, including with the use of pen and paper, thereby exemplifying a mental process. Additionally, the processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Applicant further states, “Thus, by considering staffing plans when selecting a date for an activity, reducing understaffing conditions in a contact center which results in increased wait time for customers.” (Page 8 of Applicant’s response) Improving wait time for customers is not inherently a technical problem, much less one requiring a technical solution. A human user can make changes that would address and remediate increased wait time for customers, for example.
Regarding the art rejection, Applicant submits that McDaniel is a reactive system and not a proactive one like the claimed invention (pages 8-11 of Applicant’s response). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen in ¶¶ 71-81, McDaniel discloses that agent staffing needs are determined and schedules are adjusted accordingly. ¶¶ 64, 82-83 of McDaniel explain that recalled agents, including those who indicated a willingness to work during certain time periods, are notified if they are likely to be needed. McDaniel explicitly refers to an scenario in which “the determination [that additional resources are required] may be made in advance of a campaign. For instance, in particular embodiments, forecasting tools may indicate that an agent resource deficiency is expected.” (McDaniel: ¶ 73) Therefore, McDaniel incorporates both proactive and reactive scheduling capabilities, incorporating agent-specified flexible date ranges for future work time and also allowing for the prevention of understaffing.
By storing information that includes when agents are willing to be recalled, agent-specified flexible date ranges for future activities are captured and stored. As explained in the rejection of at least independent claim 1, an administrator can review primary schedules as well as a schedule showing recall and reserve requests (which include defined time periods) from agents. The administrator has the discretion to make changes to the schedule and updates are saved by the WFM, including to the master schedule as well as in a reserve schedule database and in a primary schedule database (fig. 5), thereby implying that received agent requests (including those reviewed by a managing user) are incorporated into the stored schedule information.
Additionally regarding Applicant’s assertion that McDaniel does not teach or suggest “1. capture and storage of agent-specified flexible date ranges for future activities” (page 10 of Applicant’s response), it is noted that independent claim 1 is a method claim and there is no positively recited step of a manager approving anything (including of the received agent date range for a future activity); therefore, it is possible that no approval is ever performed within the scope of claim 1. Furthermore, method claim 1 recites “(ii) receiving agent date range for a future activity request to be forwarded to a Schedule Requests Management (SRM) system and upon manager approval stored in a database of agents preferences,” which presents “to be forwarded to a Schedule Requests Management (SRM) system and upon manager approval stored in a database of agents preferences” as intended use due to the “to be” language.
While independent claim 10 is an apparatus claim and it recites that the one or more processors are configured to “(ii) receive agent date range for a future activity request to be forwarded to a Schedule Requests Management (SRM) system and upon manager approval stored in a database of agents preferences,” the one or more processors are only clearly configured to receive agent date range for a future activity. “To be forwarded to a Schedule Requests Management (SRM) system and upon manager approval stored in a database of agents preferences” still describes the intended use for the received agent date range for a future activity; however, the one or more processors are not explicitly configured to necessarily perform the forwarding and the storing (upon manager approval) within the scope of apparatus claim 10, thereby rendering the forwarding and the storing (upon manager approval) as operations that do not necessarily limit the scope of apparatus claim 10 since they are not operations that a limiting structural element(s) of the apparatus is/are explicitly configured to perform.
The rejections are maintained.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to the “scheduling a flexible activity request in a workforce management system” (Spec: ¶ 1) without significantly more.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes – The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Process (claims 1-9), Apparatus (claim 10)
Independent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claims 1, 10] A method/system for reducing understaffing conditions by enabling scheduling of a flexible activity request, said method comprising:
(i) enable an agent to enter a date range for the flexible activity request;
(ii) receiving agent date range for a future activity request to be forwarded and upon manager approval stored in a database of agents preferences;
(iii) generating one or more schedules in a preconfigured period to be assigned to one or more agents, and forwarding the generated schedules;
(iv) retrieve preferences of future activity requests in the preconfigured period from the database of agents preferences and forward it;
(v) operating a scheduler [algorithm/plan] to select a date which is in the entered date range for each future activity request of the one or more future activity requests based on: a. the retrieved preferences of future activity requests: and b. staffing plans retrieved from a staffing data database; and
(vi) sending notifications to agents as to the selected date of each future activity request of the one or more future activity requests,
wherein each notification in the notifications includes the flexible activity request in the selected date in an assigned schedule,
thus, by taking into account staffing plans when selecting a date for an activity, reducing understaffing conditions in a contact center which results in increased wait time for customers.
It is noted that a database may simply be a collection of data.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user could specify date ranges, activities, agent information, etc. to generate a schedule as well as inform agents of scheduled activities. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to “scheduling a flexible activity request in a workforce management system” (Spec: ¶ 1), which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of managing people (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 presents a computerized method incorporating a Workforce Management (WFM) system, a Flexible Activity Requestor (FAR) module, a Schedule Requests Management (SRM) system, and a Schedule Manager Microservice (MS) to perform various processing operations at a high level. Data may be entered via a graphical user interface (GUI).
Claim 10 recites a computerized-system comprising a Workforce Management (WFM) system, one or more processors, a database of agents preferences, a staffing data database, and a memory to store the plurality of databases, said one or more processors are configured to control a Flexible Activity Requestor (FAR) module, a Schedule Requests Management (SRM) system, a Schedule Manager Microservice (MS) to perform various processing operations at a high level. Data may be entered via a graphical user interface (GUI).
The various systems and modules are generic processing elements. The GUI is a generic display element for receiving input and presenting output. Sending notifications via email messages is an example of a general link to technology.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 16-19, 33).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claim 4] wherein a future activity request is selected from at least on of:(i) time-off: (ii) self-paced training: (iii) any other activity which requires one agent involvement.
[Claim 5] wherein the notifications are sent by messages to the agents.
[Claim 6] wherein the generating of the one or more schedules in the preconfigured period to be assigned to one or more agents comprising for each agent that has one or more future activity requests in the preconfigured period which are stored in the database of agents preferences:
(i) retrieving staffing data from the staffing data database for each schedule in the preconfigured period. said staffing data comprising a required number of agents and available agents;
(ii) when the available agents for the staffing data is greater than the required number of agents for the staffing data for each schedule in the one or more schedules, them randomly selecting a date for each future activity request of the one or more future activity requests;
(iii) when the available agents for the staffing data is lower than the required number of agents for the staffing data in one or more schedules, then randomly selecting a date that is in the date range for the flexible activity request and not in a date that the available agents for the staffing data is lower than the required number of agents for the staffing data for the future activity request; and
(iv) when the available agents for the staffing data is lower than the required number of agents for the staffing data in all one or more schedules, then selecting a date that is in the date range for the flexible activity request and that is least understaffed for the future activity request.
[Claim 7] wherein each selected date for each future activity request is published in a related schedule.
[Claim 8] wherein staffing data comprising at least one of: (i) scheduling unit group of agents; and (ii) one or more skills required for a schedule.
[Claim 9] wherein the selected date for the future activity request is embedded in the assigned schedule.
The dependent claims further present details of the abstract ideas identified in regard to the independent claims above.
It is noted that a database may simply be a collection of data.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user could specify date ranges, activities, agent information, etc. to generate a schedule as well as inform agents of scheduled activities. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to “scheduling a flexible activity request in a workforce management system” (Spec: ¶ 1), which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of managing people (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims incorporate the additional elements of the independent claim from which each depends.
Claim 1 presents a computerized method incorporating a Workforce Management (WFM) system, a Flexible Activity Requestor (FAR) module, a Schedule Requests Management (SRM) system, and a Schedule Manager Microservice (MS) to perform various processing operations at a high level. Data may be entered via a graphical user interface (GUI).
Claim 2 recites wherein the operating of the FAR module is enabled by a selection of an option for the FAR module in a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that is associated to the FAR module.
Claim 3 recites wherein the FAR module is configurable.
Claim 5 recites wherein the notifications are sent by email messages to the agents.
Claim 6 incorporates additional operations generally performed by the FAR module.
Claim 7 recites wherein each selected date for each future activity request is published in a related schedule via the GUI.
Claim 9 recites wherein the selected date for the future activity request is embedded in the assigned schedule in the WFM system.
Claim 10 recites a computerized-system comprising a Workforce Management (WFM) system, one or more processors, a database of agents preferences, a staffing data database, and a memory to store the plurality of databases, said one or more processors are configured to control a Flexible Activity Requestor (FAR) module, a Schedule Requests Management (SRM) system, a Schedule Manager Microservice (MS) to perform various processing operations at a high level. Data may be entered via a graphical user interface (GUI).
The various systems and modules are generic processing elements. The GUI is a generic display element for receiving input and presenting output. Sending notifications via email messages is an example of a general link to technology.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 16-19, 33).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by McDaniel et al. (US 2014/0200941).
[Claim 1] McDaniel discloses a computerized-method for reducing understaffing conditions by enabling scheduling of a flexible activity request in a Workforce Management (WFM) system (¶ 4 – “In general, various embodiments of the present invention provide computer program products, methods, systems, apparatus, and computing entities for fulfilling a worker resource deficiency by inviting multiple reserve workers to be recalled to work.”; ¶ 38 – “The contact center may also employ a workforce management system ("WFM") 155 which can be used to create work schedules for the agents.”), said computerized-method comprising:
(i) operating a Flexible Activity Requestor (FAR) module to enable an agent to enter a date range for the flexible activity request via a Graphical User Interface (GUI) (fig. 4, ¶ 69 – “For example, in one embodiment, the agents may use the portal to view their primary schedules and generate define their reserve schedules. This may involve the agents selecting which time periods on which days they would be willing to be recalled.”; ¶ 91 – “FIG. 4 provides an embodiment of a graphical user interface ("GUI") 400 illustrating a graphic image indicating various types of time periods of an agent's schedule. In this embodiment, the GUI 400 provides a number of different tabs 401, 402, 403, 404, 406 along the top that allow the agent to view various screens provided by the GUI 400. For instance, the agent may select the "View Primary Schedule" tab 401 to be taken to a screen that displays the agent's primary schedule. In this instance, the agent has selected the "Edit Reserve Schedule" tab 402 to display a screen 405 on which the agent may view and/or edit their reserve times. Once on the screen 405, the screen 405 indicates that the agent "John Doe" 411 is logged into the RAMS. At this point, the agent selects a specific week the agent is interested in viewing from the calendar 412 on the right side of the screen 405. In particular instances, this may default to the current week.”; ¶ 92 – “However, in this instance the agent has designated part of this time from 5:00 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. as reserve time 426 and the balance of this time 422b remains off-hours (e.g., unavailable hours).”; ¶ 93 – “At this point, the agent may edit the identified reserve time 426 or may provide additional reserve time during one of the off-hours time periods 422a, 422b. Note, however, in this instance the agent is not provided with capabilities to edit the scheduled work time 424. For example, the agent may decide that they would like to designate the reserve time after their shift as two hours instead of one hour and a half. Therefore, the agent highlights the extended view 420 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. using their mouse device. In response, the GUI 400 generates a popup screen (not shown) that provides a listing of different types of time the agent may designated for this highlighted time period. In this instance, the agent is provided with the options to designate the highlighted time period as either off-hours or reserve time. In other embodiments, the agent may indicate the time period via text input or other means. Accordingly, the agent selects reserve time, validates the selection, and the screen 405 updates to now display the reserve time 426 as being from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. In other instances, other user interface forms may be used to effect the changes.”; ¶¶ 31, 56, 146, 235-236 -- The various operations are implemented using software modules executing on a processing device hardware platform.; ¶ 64 – “In particular embodiments, the master schedule 260 can reclassify the off-hours designation, as indicated in the off-hours times schedule 240, into two separate designations: unavailable times 262, 264 and reserve times 251. If the agent designates a portion of their off-time as potentially being available for recall, then that time is designated as reserve time 251. The remaining times are classified as "unavailable." In essence, unavailable times 262, 264 are times that are not eligible for recalling that agent. These times 262, 264 can be described as off-hours times that really are off-limits for working. The unavailable times 262, 264 could reflect, for example, prior commitments of the agent such that they would refuse any recall request during these times. For instance, it could reflect a time at which they must pick up a child from daycare, attend an event, etc.” In effect, unavailable times are examples of a request for time off with a fixed date/time while reserve time (during which an agent is available for recall) is a more flexible data/time request for time off since the agent expresses willingness to be off, but also to work if needed.);
(ii) receiving agent date range for a future activity request to be forwarded to a Schedule Requests Management (SRM) system and upon manager approval stored in a database of agents preferences (¶ 80 – “On the other hand, if the reserve agent is required to have their lunch break shifted by fifteen minutes, then the reserve agent may simply be told (as opposed to being asked) that this is occurring. Similarly, if a training session is cancelled by the administrator, then the agent may simply be told that the training is cancelled or postponed and that the agent is now required to handle calls during this time.”; ¶ 87 – “Typically, the WFM 155 creates the primary schedule under the direction of the contact center administrator who is given authorization to view and edit any of the primary schedules. However, in various embodiments, the roles of the agents and the administrator are different with respect to each other and the reserve schedules. Specifically, with regard to primary schedules, the administrator has authorization to control the work times while agents may be limited to only reviewing their respective primary schedule. Thus, typically, an agent is not allowed to directly edit or alter their work times identified on the primary schedule after the schedule has been generated.”; ¶ 111 – “In such circumstances, the administrator may manually determine there is an agent deficiency. An appropriate GUI could be defined allowing the administrator to indicate the deficiency and input these required number of agent resources in lieu of an automated triggering process. In some embodiments, the administrator may manually review the aggregate reserve schedule and determine which agents are eligible to be sent a recall invitation.”; ¶ 155 – “In particular embodiments, the administrator may have capabilities to manually override reserve schedules and/or to initiate recall invitations.”; ¶ 146 – “Depending on the embodiment, the system component maintaining the master schedule may be the WFM 155. In these particular embodiments, the WFM 155 may update the master schedule for an agent to reflect converted reserve time. In addition, in particular embodiments, the WFM 155 may also incorporate modules which perform the various aforementioned triggering, selection, and notification processes.” In summary, an administrator can review primary schedules as well as a schedule showing recall and reserve requests (which include defined time periods) from agents. The administrator has the discretion to make changes to the schedule and updates are saved by the WFM, including to the master schedule as well as in a reserve schedule database and in a primary schedule database (fig. 5). Respective modules and/or related software code are understood to facilitate all of the disclosed operations (¶¶ 31, 56, 146, 235-236). Furthermore, the administrator has updated information regarding any deficiencies arising from a schedule and actual conditions, as seen in ¶¶ 65, 111.; It is also noted that independent claim 1 is a method claim and there is no positively recited step of a manager approving anything (including of the received agent date range for a future activity); therefore, it is possible that no approval is ever performed within the scope of claim 1. Furthermore, method claim 1 recites “(ii) receiving agent date range for a future activity request to be forwarded to a Schedule Requests Management (SRM) system and upon manager approval stored in a database of agents preferences,” which presents “to be forwarded to a Schedule Requests Management (SRM) system and upon manager approval stored in a database of agents preferences” as intended use due to the “to be” language.);
(iii) generating one or more schedules in a preconfigured period to be assigned to one or more agents, and forwarding the generated schedules to a Schedule Manager Microservice (MS) (fig. 4 – Various services are available, as seen in each of the tabs.; fig. 2 – multiple schedules; Respective modules and/or related software code are understood to facilitate all of the disclosed operations (¶¶ 31, 56, 146, 235-236).; ¶¶ 91-100 – The agents and administrators may access the schedules (including for specific time periods) via their respective devices.);
(iv) having the SRM system retrieve preferences of future activity requests in the preconfigured period from the database of agents preferences and forward it to the Schedule Manager MS (Respective modules and/or related software code are understood to facilitate all of the disclosed operations (¶¶ 31, 56, 146, 235-236).; ¶ 63 – “The master schedule 260 reflects how all of the various time segments are associated for a single agent. In particular embodiments, the data for a master schedule 260 for an agent may be stored in a data structure in a WFM 155. In some embodiments, existing primary schedule data structures generated and maintained by the WFM 155 may be augmented to incorporate the concepts identified above, as opposed to maintaining another data structure. However, regardless of how the various schedule data is stored, the reserve schedule 250 can be conceptually viewed as separate from the primary schedule 200.”; ¶ 145 – “Accordingly, in various embodiments, once sufficient reserve agent resources have been obtained to meet the deficiency, various updating of schedules and systems may occur. Recall from FIG. 2 that a master schedule for each agent may be maintained in which the master schedule stores both the primary schedule and the reserve schedule for the agent. The reserve schedule is the time that the agent has indicated as being potentially available to work. Once the agent accepts the invitation to work certain reserve time, the reserve time is converted to working time. This time can also be referred to as "converted reserve time" or "recall time." In particular embodiments, the converted reserve time defines the agent's recall schedule and this schedule indicates the time when the agent is expected to work during their off-hours. The master schedule notes the converted reserve time, which can be done in a number of ways. For instance, in one embodiment, converted reserve time may be indicated in the agent's master schedule as working time with an additional indicator signifying that the time is converted reserve time. In various embodiments, the updated master schedule is available for the agent's review using any of the existing tools provided by the contact center to the agent for reviewing the agent's schedule. In addition, in particular embodiments, the agent may log into the portal 530 and review the agent's reserve schedule stored in the reserve schedule database 510.” The schedule updates are made available to agents and administrators and propagated changes are used to update schedules, including the master schedule.; ¶ 97 – “Both types of users access the portal 530, which may be a web server or host computer with functionality integrated into the WFM 155. For illustrating the concepts herein, the portal 530 is shown as a separate logical entity. The portal 530 may access the WFM 155 via connection 502, which may be a LAN. The WFM 155, in turn, may access and control the reserve schedule database 510 via connection 506 and the primary schedule database 515 via connection 508. In particular embodiments, these databases 510, 515 are integrated into a single database, and may be further integrated into the WFM 155 system. However, for purpose of illustration, these are shown as distinct entities.”);
(v) operating a scheduler MS to select a date which is in the entered date range for each future activity request of the one or more future activity requests based on: a. the retrieved preferences of future activity requests: and b. staffing plans retrieved from a staffing data database (¶¶ 71-81 – determining agent staffing needs and adjusting schedules accordingly; Respective modules and/or related software code are understood to facilitate all of the disclosed operations (¶¶ 31, 56, 146, 235-236).); and
(vi) sending notifications to agents as to the selected date of each future activity request of the one or more future activity requests (¶¶ 82-83 – Recalled agents are notified if they are likely to be needed.),
wherein each notification in the notifications includes the flexible activity request in the selected date in an assigned schedule in the WFM system (¶¶ 71-81 – determining agent staffing needs and adjusting schedules accordingly; ¶¶ 64, 82-83 – Recalled agents, including those who indicated a willingness to work during certain time periods, are notified if they are likely to be needed.),
thus, by taking into account staffing plans when selecting a date for an activity, reducing understaffing conditions in a contact center which results in increased wait time for customers (¶ 4 – “In general, various embodiments of the present invention provide computer program products, methods, systems, apparatus, and computing entities for fulfilling a worker resource deficiency by inviting multiple reserve workers to be recalled to work.”; Bridging ¶¶ 72-73 – “…Therefore, in this example, a determination may be made that additional agents are required either during the time a campaign is being conducted over a particular two-week period or before the campaign has started, but after the schedule for the two-week period has been set. Thus, an agent deficiency is typically not determined until agents have been scheduled. [0073] Depending on the embodiment, this determination may be made in a number of different ways. For instance, during a campaign or a given shift, existing service levels may be monitored (such as call waiting times) throughout the working hours and determined to be unacceptable.”).
[Claim 2] McDaniel discloses wherein the operating of the FAR module is enabled by a selection of an option for the FAR module in a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that is associated to the FAR module (fig. 4, ¶¶ 91-100).
[Claim 3] McDaniel discloses wherein the FAR module is configurable (¶ 234 – “The processor 1510 may be configured to execute instructions stored in volatile memory 1540, non-volatile memory 1550, or other forms of computer readable storage media accessible to the processor 1510.”; ¶ 38 – “The contact center may also employ a workforce management system ("WFM") 155 which can be used to create work schedules for the agents.”).
[Claim 4] McDaniel discloses wherein a future activity request is selected from at least on of:(i) time-off: (ii) self-paced training: (iii) any other activity which requires one agent involvement (¶ 64 – “In particular embodiments, the master schedule 260 can reclassify the off-hours designation, as indicated in the off-hours times schedule 240, into two separate designations: unavailable times 262, 264 and reserve times 251. If the agent designates a portion of their off-time as potentially being available for recall, then that time is designated as reserve time 251. The remaining times are classified as "unavailable." In essence, unavailable times 262, 264 are times that are not eligible for recalling that agent. These times 262, 264 can be described as off-hours times that really are off-limits for working. The unavailable times 262, 264 could reflect, for example, prior commitments of the agent such that they would refuse any recall request during these times. For instance, it could reflect a time at which they must pick up a child from daycare, attend an event, etc.”; ¶ 80 – training session, breaks; ¶ 48 – “off-hours”).
[Claim 5] McDaniel discloses wherein the notifications are sent by email messages to the agents (¶ 82 – “In addition, in particular embodiments, a recall invitation may be sent to a mobile device associated with an agent. For instance, the invitation may be sent as a text message to the agent's mobile device or via email to the agent's indicated email address that is accessible on the agent's mobile device.”).
[Claim 7] McDaniel discloses wherein each selected date for each future activity request is published in a related schedule via the GUI (fig. 4, ¶¶ 95-97 – GUI, user devices and portals; ¶ 145 – “Accordingly, in various embodiments, once sufficient reserve agent resources have been obtained to meet the deficiency, various updating of schedules and systems may occur. Recall from FIG. 2 that a master schedule for each agent may be maintained in which the master schedule stores both the primary schedule and the reserve schedule for the agent. The reserve schedule is the time that the agent has indicated as being potentially available to work. Once the agent accepts the invitation to work certain reserve time, the reserve time is converted to working time. This time can also be referred to as "converted reserve time" or "recall time." In particular embodiments, the converted reserve time defines the agent's recall schedule and this schedule indicates the time when the agent is expected to work during their off-hours. The master schedule notes the converted reserve time, which can be done in a number of ways. For instance, in one embodiment, converted reserve time may be indicated in the agent's master schedule as working time with an additional indicator signifying that the time is converted reserve time. In various embodiments, the updated master schedule is available for the agent's review using any of the existing tools provided by the contact center to the agent for reviewing the agent's schedule. In addition, in particular embodiments, the agent may log into the portal 530 and review the agent's reserve schedule stored in the reserve schedule database 510.” The schedule updates are made available to agents and administrators and propagated changes are used to update schedules, including the master schedule.).
[Claim 8] McDaniel discloses wherein staffing data comprising at least one of: (i) scheduling unit group of agents; and (ii) one or more skills required for a schedule (¶¶ 104, 121, 128-129, 131, 219, 229 – Skill coverage needed among a group of agents is taken into account.).
[Claim 9] McDaniel discloses wherein the selected date for the future activity request is embedded in the assigned schedule in the WFM system (fig. 4 –
PNG
media_image1.png
524
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; ¶ 93 – “For example, the agent may decide that they would like to designate the reserve time after their shift as two hours instead of one hour and a half. Therefore, the agent highlights the extended view 420 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. using their mouse device. In response, the GUI 400 generates a popup screen (not shown) that provides a listing of different types of time the agent may designated for this highlighted time period. In this instance, the agent is provided with the options to designate the highlighted time period as either off-hours or reserve time.”).
[Claim 10] Claim 10 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1 above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
Furthermore, McDaniel discloses a computerized-system for reducing understaffing conditions by enabling scheduling of a flexible activity request in a in a Workforce Management (WFM) system, said computerized system comprising: one or more processors; a database of agents preferences, a staffing data database, and a memory to store the plurality of databases, said one or more processors are configured to perform the disclosed operations (¶¶ 31, 56, 146, 234-236 -- The various operations are implemented using software modules executing on a processing device hardware platform and memory.; ¶ 97 – “Both types of users access the portal 530, which may be a web server or host computer with functionality integrated into the WFM 155. For illustrating the concepts herein, the portal 530 is shown as a separate logical entity. The portal 530 may access the WFM 155 via connection 502, which may be a LAN. The WFM 155, in turn, may access and control the reserve schedule database 510 via connection 506 and the primary schedule database 515 via connection 508. In particular embodiments, these databases 510, 515 are integrated into a single database, and may be further integrated into the WFM 155 system. However, for purpose of illustration, these are shown as distinct entities.”; ¶ 4 – “In general, various embodiments of the present invention provide computer program products, methods, systems, apparatus, and computing entities for fulfilling a worker resource deficiency by inviting multiple reserve workers to be recalled to work.”; ¶ 38 – “The contact center may also employ a workforce management system ("WFM") 155 which can be used to create work schedules for the agents.”).
It is also noted that, while independent claim 10 is an apparatus claim and it recites that the one or more processors are configured to “(ii) receive agent date range for a future activity request to be forwarded to a Schedule Requests Management (SRM) system and upon manager approval stored in a database of agents preferences,” the one or more processors are only clearly configured to receive agent date range for a future activity. “To be forwarded to a Schedule Requests Management (SRM) system and upon manager approval stored in a database of agents preferences” still describes the intended use for the received agent date range for a future activity; however, the one or more processors are not explicitly configured to necessarily perform the forwarding and the storing (upon manager approval) within the scope of apparatus claim 10, thereby rendering the forwarding and the storing (upon manager approval) as operations that do not necessarily limit the scope of apparatus claim 10 since they are not operations that a limiting structural element(s) of the apparatus is/are explicitly configured to perform.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel et al. (US 2014/0200941), as applied to claim 1 above.
[Claim 6] McDaniel discloses wherein the generating of the one or more schedules in the preconfigured period to be assigned to one or more agents is operated by the FAR module (fig. 4 – Various services are available, as seen in each of the tabs.; fig. 2 – multiple schedules; Respective modules and/or related software code are understood to facilitate all of the disclosed operations (¶¶ 31, 56, 146, 235-236).; ¶¶ 91-100 – The agents and administrators may access the schedules (including for specific time periods) via their respective devices.) and comprising for each agent that has one or more future activity requests in the preconfigured period which are stored in the database of agents preferences (¶ 145 – “Recall from FIG. 2 that a master schedule for each agent may be maintained in which the master schedule stores both the primary schedule and the reserve schedule for the agent. The reserve schedule is the time that the agent has indicated as being potentially available to work.”):
(i) retrieving staffing data from the staffing data database for each schedule in the preconfigured period, said staffing data comprising a required number of agents and available agents (¶¶ 64, 74-78, 80).
McDaniel does identify the following scenario: (ii) when the available agents for the staffing data is greater than the required number of agents for the staffing data for each schedule in the one or more schedules (¶ 78 – there are more agents available than required to meet the deficiency); however, McDaniel does not explicitly perform the associated operation of “then randomly selecting a date for each future activity request of the one or more future activity requests.” Viewing a reserved time period during which an agent is willing to be recalled as tentative time off (when the agent is not needed), then not forcing the agent to work during a reserved time when there are enough other agents available to fill a shortage is, in effect, an example of letting the agent take the requested time off at random (e.g., without specific rules being applied and when the agent requests time off). As seen in ¶ 84, when there are more than sufficient agent resources, it is expected that enough will respond to fill a deficiency, thereby implying that no one will be forced to come in for a recall. This scenario suggests that one would be able to grant time off without any problem and whenever the agent prefers to have off (e.g., at random).
McDaniel does identify the following scenario: (iii) when the available agents for the staffing data is lower than the required number of agents for the staffing data in one or more schedules (¶ 115 – “In operation 704, a test is performed to determine whether there are more candidate reserve agents than required to meet the need. If there are fewer agents identified in the reserve schedules than can meet the need, then this means that even if all the agents are recalled, it still would not be sufficient to meet the required demand. If this is the case, then all of the agents should be contacted. This is reflected by the process flow continuing to operation 708 where the notification process flow is informed of the list of identified agents.”); however, McDaniel does not explicitly perform the associated operation of “then randomly selecting a date that is in the date range for the flexible activity request and not in a date that the available agents for the staffing data is lower than the required number of agents for the staffing data for the future activity request.” Similarly, McDaniel does identify the following scenario: (iv) when the available agents for the staffing data is lower than the required number of agents for the staffing data in all one or more schedules (¶ 115 – “In operation 704, a test is performed to determine whether there are more candidate reserve agents than required to meet the need. If there are fewer agents identified in the reserve schedules than can meet the need, then this means that even if all the agents are recalled, it still would not be sufficient to meet the required demand. If this is the case, then all of the agents should be contacted. This is reflected by the process flow continuing to operation 708 where the notification process flow is informed of the list of identified agents.”); however, McDaniel does not explicitly perform the associated operation of “then selecting a date that is in the date range for the flexible activity request and that is least understaffed for the future activity request.” Viewing a reserved time period during which an agent is willing to be recalled as tentative time off (when the agent is not needed), then not forcing the agent to work during a reserved time when there are enough other agents available to fill a shortage is, in effect, an example of letting the agent take the requested time off at random (e.g., without specific rules being applied and when the agent requests time off).
Scenarios (iii) and (iv) present situations in which the demand for additional agents is more crucial. McDaniel discloses that it may be mandatory for agents to be recalled during indicated reserve times (¶ 81) or at least contacted (¶ 115). Breaks can also be shifted as needed (¶ 51). An agent’s previously scheduled training time may be cancelled so that the agent can handle calls as normal instead (¶¶ 54, 80, 127). McDaniel expresses a preference to first attempt to perform the break shifting and training cancellation before having to recall agents during off-hours (¶ 127). Recalled agents may also be prioritized by an appropriate skill, seniority, pay rate, etc. (¶ 128). In other words, when there is a more immediate demand and/or a more critical need for agents, flexibility for requested time off (in the form of reserve time) may be affected, especially when there is a greater need for agents compared to the number of agents available. McDaniel has sufficient disclosure to suggest that the flexibility in granting requests for time off should be inversely proportional to the sufficiency of staffing levels (i.e., there are sufficient available agents to meet the expected demand). Scenarios (ii)-(iv) cover varying scenarios in the spectrum of sufficiency (or insufficiency) of staffing levels. The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify McDaniel to explicitly perform the following operations in response to each of the respective conditions being met:
(ii) when the available agents for the staffing data is greater than the required number of agents for the staffing data for each schedule in the one or more schedules, then randomly selecting a date for each future activity request of the one or more future activity requests;
(iii) when the available agents for the staffing data is lower than the required number of agents for the staffing data in one or more schedules, then randomly selecting a date that is in the date range for the flexible activity request and not in a date that the available agents for the staffing data is lower than the required number of agents for the staffing data for the future activity request; and
(iv) when the available agents for the staffing data is lower than the required number of agents for the staffing data in all one or more schedules, then selecting a date that is in the date range for the flexible activity request and that is least understaffed for the future activity request
in order to allow an administrator to have greater control over staffing, thereby allowing for more cost-effective and efficient means to bring in just enough agents as needed for varying demand while providing agents with some control over their work schedules and opportunities to work additional hours and earn additional income, thereby improving agent satisfaction as well.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 SUSANNA M DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4:30 pm.
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, 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 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.
/SUSANNA M. DIAZ/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625A