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
This is a non-final rejection. Claims 1-9, and 13-20.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 01/24/2023 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 06/12/2026, Amending Claims 1, and 13.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/12/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in light of the new claims.
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 112a, will be withdrawn.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 102/103- Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, (applicant cancelled claims 10-12) filed 05/05/2025, with respect to the art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive, the rejection under 35 USC 102/103 has been withdrawn. No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, moreover, any new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims,
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (Pages 9-10 of the remarks): with regard to Step 2A, Prong One
A. Step 2A, Prong One: The Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner has improperly characterized the claims at too high a level of abstraction.
The Examiner's characterization of the claims as directed to "commercial or legal interactions" or "managing personal behavior" ignores these specific technical features. The claimed invention does not recite any commercial transaction, legal obligation, or interpersonal interaction. Instead, it recites a specific technical architecture for adaptive, distributed computational resource optimization. Under Enfish and McRO, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
The Applicant's Specification titled "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING MULTIPLE SCHEDULES FOR COMPUTATIONAL EFFICIENCY" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for generating a plurality of schedule based on a threshold number and different received data that meet the criteria" ([000791] of the specification).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, and 13 recites the abstract idea of systems for generating a plurality of schedule based on a threshold number and different received data that meet the criteria. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business offer for generating a plurality of schedule based on a threshold number and different received data that meet the criteria. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite systems for generating a plurality of schedule based on a threshold number and different received data that meet the criteria. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. Also, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant argues (Pages 10-12 of the remarks): with regard to Step 2A, Prong Two and 2B
Even if the Office were to maintain that the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims clearly include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application.
The Office Action asserts that the additional elements (connector circuits, warden circuit) are "generic computer functions." Applicant strongly disagrees.
…
Under Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), claims that recite a specific manner of achieving a particular technical result constitute a practical application. The claimed invention recites a specific manner of dynamically optimizing computational resources, enforcing schedule integrity through automated corrective action, and enabling distributed computation through feature space traversal. This constitutes a practical application.
III. The Claims Amount to Significantly More (Step 2B)
Even if the claims were found to be directed to an abstract idea that fails to integrate into a practical application-which Applicant does not concede-the claims nonetheless recite an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
…
(iii) The Examiner's Reliance on Generic Computer Components Is Misplaced
The Examiner asserts that "an apparatus, circuit, evaluation circuit, an agglomerate network are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions." This characterization is incorrect
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recites the additional limitation an apparatus, circuit, evaluation circuit an agglomerate network are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f). All of these additional elements are not significantly more because these, again, are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer.
The use of generic computer component does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements 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 conventional computer implementation.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
Further, with regard to mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
The Alice framework, step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, and 13 does not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. Claims 1, and 13 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include “an apparatus, evaluation circuit, an agglomerate network”
Examiner asserts that an apparatus, circuit, evaluation circuit an agglomerate network are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions. (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
In addition, fig. 2 and 181, of the specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The computing elements with a computing device is recited at high level of generality (e.g. a generic device performing a generic computer function of processing data). Thus, this step is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a generic computer. In addition, using a processor to process data has been well-understood routing, conventional activity in the industry for many years.
Generic computer features, such as system or storage, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These limitations merely describe implementation for the invention using elements of a general-purpose system, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. 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, 1791 (Federal Circuit 2015).
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 1-9, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-9 are directed to an apparatus (machine) and claims 13-20 are directed to a method (process). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-9, and 13-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. An apparatus, comprising:
a schedule generation circuit structured to generate a plurality of initial schedules for an agglomerate network, the plurality of initial schedules comprising a first number of schedules; and
a threshold number determining circuit structured to determine a threshold number of schedules to dynamically optimize computational resources utilized by the schedule generation circuit, comprising:
a first schedule evaluation circuit comprising:
a first evaluation circuit structured to evaluate the plurality of initial schedules to select a first schedule for the agglomerate network, among the plurality of initial schedules, that meets desired criteria; and
a first threshold determining circuit structured to:
identify a first place number, among the first number of schedules, of the selected first schedule; and
if the first place number is greater than or equal to a first threshold number of the generated schedules, the first threshold number being within two of the threshold number:
increase the threshold number of schedules to a second threshold number of generated schedules, greater than the first threshold number; and
instruct the schedule generation circuit to generate a second plurality of schedules equal to the second threshold number of schedules; and
a second schedule evaluation circuit comprising: a second evaluation circuit structured to evaluate the second plurality of schedules to select a second schedule for the agglomerate network, among the second plurality of schedules, that meets the desired criteria; and
a second threshold determining circuit structured to:
identify a second place number, among the second plurality of schedules, of the selected second schedule; and
if the second place number is '1' or '2', decrease the threshold number of schedules to a third threshold number of schedules, less than the first threshold number;
a third schedule evaluation circuit comprising:
a warden circuit structured to determine whether a property of the first schedule and/or the second schedule violates a schedule norm; and
a corrective action circuit structured to generate, responsive to a determination that the property violates the schedule norm, a corrective action command value structured to trigger an adjustment to the first schedule and/or the second schedule, wherein the adjustment is structured to effect a change of the property such that the property retracts from violating the schedule norm; and
a plurality of configurable connector circuits structured to propagate, bias, realign, or weight data between the schedule generation circuit and at least one additional agglomerate network circuit, wherein each configurable connector circuit is further configured to distribute schedule computation tasks across different computing hardware by adapting and formatting data outputs of one module or algorithm for compatibility with data inputs of another module or algorithm by traversing between different feature spaces of the different modules or algorithms distributed across the different computing hardware.
Regarding independent claim 13, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
A method, comprising:
generating a plurality of initial schedules for an agglomerate network, the plurality of initial schedules comprising a first number of schedules; and
determining a threshold number of schedules to dynamically optimize computational resources utilized by the schedule generation circuit, comprising:
evaluating the plurality of initial schedules to select a first schedule for the agglomerate network, among the plurality of initial schedules, that meets desired criteria;
identifying a first place number, among the first number of schedules, of the selected first schedule; if the first place number is greater than or equal to a first threshold number of the generated schedules, the first threshold number being within two of the threshold number:
increasing the threshold number of schedules to a second threshold number of generated schedules, greater than the first threshold number; and
generating a second plurality of schedules equal to the second threshold number of schedules;
evaluating the second plurality of schedules to select a second schedule for the agglomerate network, among the second plurality of schedules, that meets the desired criteria;
identifying a second place number, among the second plurality of schedules, of the selected second schedule; and
if the second place number is '1' or '2', decreasing the threshold number of schedules to a third threshold number of schedules, less than the first threshold number;
determining whether a property of the first schedule and/or the second schedule violates a schedule norm; and
responsive to a determination that the property violates the schedule norm,
generating a corrective action command value structured to trigger an adjustment to the first schedule and/or the second schedule, wherein the adjustment is structured to effect a change of the property such that the property retracts from violating the schedule norm; and
propagating, biasing, realigning, or weighting data using a plurality of configurable connector circuits structured between the schedule generation circuit and at least one additional agglomerate network circuit, wherein each configurable connector circuit is further configured to distribute schedule computation tasks across different computing hardware by adapting and formatting data outputs of one module or algorithm for compatibility with data inputs of another module or algorithm by traversing between different feature spaces of the different modules or algorithms distributed across the different computing hardware.
The Applicant's Specification titled "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING MULTIPLE SCHEDULES FOR COMPUTATIONAL EFFICIENCY" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for generating a plurality of schedule based on a threshold number and different received data that meet the criteria" ([000791] of the specification).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, and 13 recites the abstract idea of systems for generating a plurality of schedule based on a threshold number and different received data that meet the criteria. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business offer for generating a plurality of schedule based on a threshold number and different received data that meet the criteria. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite systems for generating a plurality of schedule based on a threshold number and different received data that meet the criteria. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. Also, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-9, and 14-20 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 wherein the schedule generation circuit is further structured to propagate the plurality of initial schedules in the agglomerate network.
claim 3 propagate the second plurality of schedules in the agglomerate network.
claim 4 the selected first schedule is determined to be a best schedule among the plurality of initial schedules based on a best fit to the desired criteria; and the selected second schedule is determined to be a best schedule among the second plurality of schedules based on a best fit to the desired criteria.
claim 5 wherein at least one of a number or a type of schedule generated by the schedule generation circuit is fixed or is dynamically or algorithmically determined.
Claim 6 wherein the schedule generation circuit is further structured to generate a variety of different schedules.
claim 7 generate a top number of schedules.
claim 8 wherein the first number of schedules is determined based on previous selections of schedules.
claim 9 wherein the schedule generation circuit is further structured to rank each of: the plurality of initial schedules; and the second plurality of schedules.
claim 14 propagating the plurality of initial schedules in the agglomerate network.
claim 15 comprising propagating the second plurality of schedules in the agglomerate network.
claim 16 the selected first schedule is determined to be a best schedule among the plurality of initial schedules based on a best fit to the desired criteria: and the selected second schedule is determined to be a best schedule among the second plurality of schedules based on a best fit to the desired criteria.
claim 17 wherein: the selected first schedule is determined to be a best schedule among the plurality of initial schedules based on a best fit to the desired criteria: and the selected second schedule is determined to be a best schedule among the second plurality of schedules based on a best fit to the desired criteria.
claim 18 wherein at least one of a number or a type of generated schedule is fixed or is dynamically or algorithmically determined.
claim 19 further comprising generating a variety of different schedules.
claim 20 further comprising generating a top number of schedules.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, and 13.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-9, and 13-20 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, and 13 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1 an apparatus, circuit, an agglomerate network, evaluation circuit,
Claim 13 circuit, an agglomerate network, evaluation circuit,
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, and 13 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of an apparatus, circuit, evaluation circuit, an agglomerate network. which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, (fig. 181). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, and 13 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps of generating a plurality of schedule based on a threshold number and different received data that meet the criteria and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention generate a plurality of schedule based on a threshold number and different received data that meet the criteria. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-9, and 14-20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, and 13 respectively, claim 11 recite a connector circuit but, these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, and 13, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-9, and 13-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claims 1, and 13 include a system, a database, devices, and an electronic calendar. Further, claim 11 recite a connector circuit. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to generating a plurality of schedule based on a threshold number and different received data that meet the criteria.
Claims 1-9, and 13-20 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, Closest prior art to the invention include Singh US 2022/0067632: Scheduling optimization view of Lee, Edward Ashford, and David G. Messerschmitt. "Static scheduling of synchronous data flow programs for digital signal processing." IEEE Transactions on computers 100.1 (1987): 24-35. Aslam et al. US 11,922,346: System and method for shift schedule management. Vijayaraghavan et al. US 2021/0165708: Systems and methods for predictive system failure monitoring. Yumba et al. US 2014/0149164: Scheduling management system and scheduling management method.
None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in independent claim 1, “if the first place number is greater than or equal to a first threshold number of the generated schedules, the first threshold number being within two of the threshold number:
increase the threshold number of schedules to a second threshold number of generated schedules, greater than the first threshold number; and
instruct the schedule generation circuit to generate a second plurality of schedules equal to the second threshold number of schedules; and
a second schedule evaluation circuit comprising: a second evaluation circuit structured to evaluate the second plurality of schedules to select a second schedule for the agglomerate network, among the second plurality of schedules, that meets the desired criteria; and
a second threshold determining circuit structured to:
identify a second place number, among the second plurality of schedules, of the selected second schedule; and
if the second place number is '1' or '2', decrease the threshold number of schedules to a third threshold number of schedules, less than the first threshold number.
And claim 13 if the first place number is greater than or equal to a first threshold number of the generated schedules, the first threshold number being within two of the threshold number:
increasing the threshold number of schedules to a second threshold number of generated schedules, greater than the first threshold number; and
generating a second plurality of schedules equal to the second threshold number of schedules; evaluating the second plurality of schedules to select a second schedule for the agglomerate network, among the second plurality of schedules, that meets the desired criteria;
identifying a second place number, among the second plurality of schedules, of the selected second schedule; and
if the second place number is '1' or '2', decreasing the threshold number of schedules to a third threshold number of schedules, less than the first threshold number.” The reason for not applying 35 USC 102/103 rejection of claims 1-9, and 13-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee, Edward Ashford, and David G. Messerschmitt. "Static scheduling of synchronous data flow programs for digital signal processing." IEEE Transactions on computers 100.1 (1987): 24-35.
Aslam et al. US 11,922,346: System and method for shift schedule management.
Vijayaraghavan et al. US 2021/0165708: Systems and methods for predictive system failure monitoring.
Yumba et al. US 2014/0149164: Scheduling management system and scheduling management method.
Lau WO2022/173376: Systems and methods for scalable, decentralized and coordinated logistics schedule.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights