METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR MANAGEMENT OF EVENTS AND DISRUPTIONS

§101 §103

DETAILED ACTION 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 . Disposition of Claims Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application. No claims have been added. Claims 1-10 and 16-20 have been selected by Applicant Without Traverse. Claims 11-15 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1,3, 8, 16, and 18 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made final. Response to Remarks The examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 but does not find said arguments to be persuasive. The examiner submits that the pending claims recited at least a method and non-transitory computer readable medium for management of task events and disruptions, which both fall into one of the four statutory categories. The claims must then qualify as patent eligible subject matter. i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014) (citing Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979 (2013). See MPEP § 2106.04 for detailed information on the judicial exceptions. Because abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomenon "are the basic tools of scientific and technological work", the Supreme Court has expressed concern that monopolizing these tools by granting patent rights may impede innovation rather than promote it. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980; Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012). However, the Court has also emphasized that an invention is not considered to be ineligible for patenting simply because it involves a judicial exception. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1980-81 (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187, 209 USPQ 1, 8 (1981)). See also Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d. 1343, 1349, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("That a mathematical equation is required to complete the claimed method and system does not doom the claims to abstraction."). Accordingly, the Court has said that integration of an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon into a practical application may be eligible for patent protection. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (explaining that "in applying the §101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the ‘buildin[g] block[s]’ of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more" (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 89, 110 USPQ2d at 1971) and stating that Mayo "set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts"); Mayo, 566 U.S. at 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d at 1969, 1971. The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself, or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test, is discussed in further detail in subsection III, below. The first part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (i.e., a judicial exception). Id. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the second part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Id. citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). The Supreme Court has described the second part of the test as the "search for an 'inventive concept'". Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). The examiner does agree that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be established and considered in the determination of patent eligibility under 35 USC 101. In considering the pending claims, the examiner submits the following: Claim 1 of the pending application (as well as the claims that depend therefrom) recite: A computer implemented method of operating a connected warehouse by performing, by at least one processor, operations comprising: connecting a gateway device with a data ingestion pipeline, the data ingestion pipeline being in communication with a plurality of worker computing devices and a plurality of sensor devices, the worker computing devices each relating to one or more workers of a plurality of workers; retrieving a set of tasks to be completed in a predetermined period, identifying a set of triggering events that may disrupt each task of the set of set of tasks when a triggering event of the set of triggering events occurs is detected via sensor data received from at least one of the plurality of sensor devices through the data ingestion pipeline, initiating an event resolution, wherein the event resolution comprises one or more of: sending a notification of the triggering event to at least one of the plurality of worker computing devices relating to at least one worker affected by the triggering event; and sending the notification of the triggering event to at least one device associated with at least one supervisor affected by the triggering event; scheduling a resolution task to address the triggering event based on an event resolution matrix, the event resolution matrix correlating each triggering event of the set of triggering events with a respective set of activities to be performed; and pushing the resolution task to at least one of the plurality of worker computing devices. The language of at least claim 1 is reproduced above, with the significant structural language and method steps emboldened. In considering the claims, the examiner has taken into consideration the state of the art at the time of filing consistent with Applicant’s specification, as originally filed. The examiner further submits that the language of the computer readable storage medium as recited in independent claim 16, recites language that is similar to that recited in the system of claim 1, so that the 101 analysis as applied to claim 1, similarly applies to claim 16, at least based on its resemblance to claim 1. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, it is clear that the pending claim 1 and similarly recited independent claim 16 falls into the judicial exception category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The aforementioned categorization is evidenced at least in the steps of: “sending a notification of the triggering event to at least one of the plurality of worker computing devices relating to at least one worker affected by the triggering event” (claim 1 of the pending application) which constitutes following rules or instructions, and therefore places the pending claim into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. The claim then requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two, to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP § 2106.04(d). The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In the aforementioned claims, the loan validator tool acts as an intermediary between the user and the merchant to effectuate a loan approval, making it a fundamental economic practice, that is being implemented on a computer processor. An example that would be considered analogous to the pending claims would be manual processing of a loan approval, Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath Beyond, 876 F.3d 1372, 1378-79, 125 USPQ2d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible). See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69, 1970 (2012). The Federal Circuit has distinguished between claims that are ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception (which require further analysis to determine their eligibility) and those that are not (which are therefore patent eligible), e.g., claims that improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972), MPEP 2106.06(b) (summarizing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and other cases that were eligible as improvements to technology or computer functionality instead of being directed to abstract ideas). Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c) and MPEP § 2106.05(e) through (h). Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: • An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a); • Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2); • Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b); • Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and • Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e). The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: • Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); • Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale • Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I supra, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). In determining if the language of the pending claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the examiner identifies the method steps and the system components of exemplary claim 1, which are provided in bold below: Claim 1. A computer implemented method of operating a connected warehouse by performing, by at least one processor, operations comprising: connecting a gateway device with a data ingestion pipeline, the data ingestion pipeline being in communication with a plurality of worker computing devices and a plurality of sensor devices, the worker computing devices each relating to one or more workers of a plurality of workers; retrieving a set of tasks to be completed in a predetermined period, identifying a set of triggering events that may disrupt each task of the set of set of tasks when a triggering event of the set of triggering events occurs is detected via sensor data received from at least one of the plurality of sensor devices through the data ingestion pipeline, initiating an event resolution, wherein the event resolution comprises one or more of: sending a notification of the triggering event to at least one of the plurality of worker computing devices relating to at least one worker affected by the triggering event; and sending the notification of the triggering event to at least one device associated with at least one supervisor affected by the triggering event; scheduling a resolution task to address the triggering event based on an event resolution matrix, the event resolution matrix correlating each triggering event of the set of triggering events with a respective set of activities to be performed; and pushing the resolution task to at least one of the plurality of worker computing devices. A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Such claims are eligible at Step 2A because they are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception. The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Applicant’s specification fails to identify or explicitly disclose any improvement in the function of a computer or any other technology or technological field, as evidenced by the aforementioned citations from Applicant’s specification. Applicant’s specification merely combines generic, well understood computing elements in the performance of the well understood, routine, and conventional steps. Claims 2-10 and 17-20 fail to cure the deficiencies under 35 USC 101 of the claims from which they depend and are similarly rejected for the same reasoning as applied to independent claim 1, and similarly recited claim 16. For the aforementioned reasoning, the claims are found to be ineligible, and the rejection of the pending claims in view of 35 USC 101 is hereby maintained and made final. Regarding Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 103 in view of the applied prior art of record, the examiner submits that said arguments are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as presented below. 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 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more. Under 2106.03 Eligibility step 1, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-0 are directed to a method, and claims 16-20 are directed towards a computer storage medium for management of events and disruptions, each of which falls within one of the four statutory categories of inventions process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A: Under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception by referring to the groupings of subject matter. 2106.04, certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Regarding representative independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a method for management of events and disruptions, in the following limitations: Connecting a gateway device with a data ingestion pipeline; Retrieving a set of tasks to be completed in a predetermined period; Identifying a set of triggering events; Initiating an event resolution in response to a triggering event occurring; Sending a notification to a worker computing device; and Sending a notification to at least one device associated with at least one supervisor; scheduling a resolution task to address the triggering event based on an event resolution matrix, the event resolution matrix correlating each triggering event of the set of triggering events with a respective set of activities to be performed; and pushing the resolution task to at least one of the plurality of worker computing devices. The above-recited limitations set forth an arrangement to manage triggering events and disruptions. This arrangement amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interactions. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A (prong 2), the next step in the eligibility analysis looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as: A gateway device; a worker computing devices; a device associated with at least one supervisor However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In addition, the recitations above are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Independent claim 16 and dependent claims 2-10, and 17-20 also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations: A gateway device; a worker computing devices; a device associated with at least one supervisor These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claims 1-10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raj et al (US 2022/0141899) in view of Nafus et al (US 2019/0130337), further in view of Krishnaswamy et al (US 2022/0198565). Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a computer implemented method of operating a connected warehouse (see at least paragraph [0029] to Raj et al)by performing, by at least one processor, operations comprising: connecting a gateway device with a data ingestion pipeline (see at least paragraph [0031] to Raj et al), the data ingestion pipeline being in communication with a plurality of worker computing devices and a plurality of sensor devices (see at least paragraph [0032] to Raj et al), the worker computing devices each relating to one or more workers of a plurality of workers (see at least paragraph [0032] to Raj et al); retrieving a set of tasks to be completed in a predetermined period, identifying a set of triggering events that may disrupt each task of the set of set of tasks when a triggering event of the set of triggering events is detected via sensor data received from at least one of the plurality of sensor devices through the data ingestion pipeline (see at least paragraph [0049] to Raj et al), initiating an event resolution, wherein the event resolution comprises one or more of: sending a notification of the triggering event to at least one of the plurality of worker computing devices relating to at least one worker affected by the triggering event (see at least paragraph [0035] to Raj et al); and sending the notification of the triggering event to at least one device associated with at least one supervisor affected by the triggering event (see at least paragraph [0032] to Raj et al). Raj et al does not appear to explicitly disclose a triggering event, wherein said triggering event may disrupt the task. However, Nafus et al discloses a system and method of disturbance event detection in a shared environment, wherein said triggering event may disrupt the task (see at least paragraph [0028] to Nafus et al). The previously applied prior art of record does not appear to explicitly disclose scheduling a resolution task to address the triggering event based on an event resolution matrix, the event resolution matrix correlating each triggering event of the set of triggering events with a respective set of activities to be performed; and pushing the resolution task to at least one of the plurality of worker computing devices. However, the applied prior art reference Krishnaswamy et al discloses a system and method for the management of a portfolio of assets, further comprising scheduling a resolution task to address the triggering event based on an event resolution matrix, the event resolution matrix correlating each triggering event of the set of triggering events with a respective set of activities to be performed; and pushing the resolution task to at least one of the plurality of worker computing devices (see at least paragraph [0144] to Krishnaswamy et al). The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the system and method for enabling workers to use a personal mobile device with a wearable electronic device, as disclosed by Raj et al and the system and method of disturbance event detection in a shared environment as taught by Nafus et al, further in view of the system and method for management of a portfolio of assets as taught by Krishnaswamy et al, in order to identify disturbance events within a shared work environment(see at least paragraph [0005] to Nafus et al) could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing. Regarding claim 2, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising tagging each task with the set of triggering events that may disrupt each task to generate a task-event correlation matrix (see at least paragraph [0029] to Raj et al). Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising generating the event resolution matrix that correlates each triggering event of the set of events with a respective event resolution, wherein the step of initiating an event resolution comprises referring to the event resolution matrix to determine the event resolution for the triggering event (see at least paragraph [0068] to Raj et al). Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the step of tagging each task with the set of triggering events is performed based on historical data stored in the event resolution matrix (see at least paragraph [0126] to Raj et al). Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising generating event-resolution logs based on historical data stored in the event resolution matrix, and building a predictive model that identifies a probability of an occurrence of a triggering event (see at least paragraph [0068] to Raj et al). Regarding claim 6, the prior art discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising displaying the event-resolution logs and predictive model on a user interface of at least one of the plurality of worker computing devices and/or the at least one device associated with the at least one supervisor (see at least paragraph [0029] to Raj et al). Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the triggering event is one of a service request and an alarm (see at least paragraph [0025] to Raj et al). Regarding claim 8, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the notification includes a message restricting access to a zone affected by the triggering event and pausing each task affected by the triggering event (see at least paragraph [0076] to Raj et al). Regarding claim 9, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: presenting a first task of a shift on a user interface (see at least paragraph [0033] to Raj et al); in response to a first change in conditions of the first task, presenting a first unexpected subtask related to the first task (see at least paragraph [0034] to Raj et al); in response to progress or completing the first unexpected subtask, updating status of the first unexpected subtask and assigning a second task of the shift on a user interface (see at least paragraph [0034] to Raj et al); in response to a second change in conditions of the second task, presenting a second unexpected subtask related to the second task (see at least paragraph [0037] to Raj et al); and in response to progress or completing the second unexpected subtask, updating status of the second unexpected subtask (see at least paragraph [0049] to Raj et al). Regarding claim 10, the prior art discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising: determining a real-time status of all task operations, based on status of the first and second tasks; and calculating task performance metrics based on the real-time status (see at least paragraph [0058] to Raj et al). Claims 16-20 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892. The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated. Certificate of Mailing I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to: Commissioner for Patents P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 on __________. (Date) Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: ________________________________________________________ Signature: ______________________________________ Certificate of Transmission by Facsimile I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (___)_____ -_________ on _____________. (Date) Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: _________________________________________ Signature: ________________________________________ Certificate of Transmission via USPTO Patent Electronic Filing System I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system to the USPTO on _____________. (Date) Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: _________________________________________ Signature: ________________________________________ Please refer to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), 1.6(d) and 1.8(a)(2) for filing limitations concerning transmissions via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, facsimile transmissions and mailing, respectively. /TALIA F CRAWLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627