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 final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on December 24, 2025, wherein claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18, and 21-27 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks have been fully considered but they are geared towards the newly amended limitations and the newly added limitations. The newly added limitations and the newly amended claims with the newly added limitations are considered and addressed for the first time in the rejection below.
35 USC §101 discussion:
The added limitations in the amended claims are using obtained/received/etc., non-technical abstract information (e.g. constraints, event information, resources, schedules, completion requirements, historical information, etc.,) and obtaining more abstract information and then analyzing and manipulation this information (e.g. corresponding information, comparing information, predictions and optimizations (using mathematical techniques – see specification also; and also note the Applicant states machine learning but nothing specific and significant (detailed) is provided as to what the machine learning entails), assigning) and making updates/modifications/etc., to the information and using the resulting information for decision-making (e.g. controlling human activities of task assignments and transitioning between tasks). The newly added limitations and the claims as a whole, as stated in the previous rejection, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling and following rules or instructions)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships/models and mathematical calculations used to get results which are further used in the analysis and scheduling) (see further details in the rejection below).
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and the independent claims and dependent claims only use generic/general-purpose computer and computing elements/components/etc., (for example, computers, systems, processors, devices, automatically, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interfaces, graphical interfaces/displays (input/output), etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 4-6, 21-27); non-transitory computer readable medium, computers, systems, processors, devices, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, devices, automatically, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interfaces, graphical interfaces/displays (input/output), etc., (in independent claim 8 and its dependent claims 9, 11-13); and systems, processors, devices, automatically, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interfaces, graphical interfaces/displays (input/output), etc., (independent claim 15 and its dependent claims 16 and 18)). The limitations/terms showing the generic/general-purpose computer and computing elements/components/etc., are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/ devices, etc. Applicant’s claims show no technical improvement to computer functionality (or any other technical functionality) and no improvement to any technical environment. And the courts have required the claims to be directed to an improvement in the functionality of the computer or network platform itself. See Ancora Techs. Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1347–49 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool.. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). It should also be noted that patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., CAFC Case number 23-2437 (Fed. Cir. 2025). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (as stated above) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. Further, Appellant’s claims are different from those claims that the Courts have found to be patent eligible by virtue of reciting technological improvements to a computer system. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1249, 1257 (holding that claims reciting computer processor for serving “composite web page” were patent eligible because “the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks”); Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that claims directed to “an improved computer memory system” having many benefits were patent eligible). In McRO1, the Federal Circuit concluded that the claim, when considered as a whole, was directed to a “technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques” through the “use [of] limited rules . . . specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316 (McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Specifically, the Federal Circuit found that the claimed rules allowed computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters that previously could only be produced by human animators; and the rules were limiting because they defined morph weight sets as a function of phoneme sub-sequences. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313. The present situation is not like the one in McRO where computers had been unable to make certain subjective determinations, e.g., regarding morph weight and phoneme timings, which could only be made prior to the claimed invention by human animators. The Background section of one of the patents at issue in McRO, Rosenfeld (US Patent 6,307,576 B1; issued Oct. 23, 2001), includes a description of the admitted prior art method and the shortcomings associated with that prior method. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1303-06. There is no comparable discussion in Appellant’s Specification or elsewhere of record. Further, as the Federal Circuit has explained, a “claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even assuming the technique claimed was “[groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” that would not be enough for the claimed abstract idea to be patent eligible. See Ass ’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. (see rejection below for more details).
Furthermore, under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), the independent claims and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims recite using known and/or generic computing devices and software (for example, computers, systems, processors, devices, automatically, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interfaces, graphical interfaces/displays (input/output), etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 4-6, 21-27); non-transitory computer readable medium, computers, systems, processors, devices, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, devices, automatically, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interfaces, graphical interfaces/displays (input/output), etc., (in independent claim 8 and its dependent claims 9, 11-13); and systems, processors, devices, automatically, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interfaces, graphical interfaces/displays (input/output), etc., (independent claim 15 and its dependent claims 16 and 18)). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, ¶¶ 0080-0085 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014). (also see rejection 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 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Note: The above §101 discussion/response in the “Response to Argument” section in incorporated into this rejection and should also be considered part of this rejection in addition to the rejection below.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 21-27 are directed to a method (i.e., process), claims 8-9 and 11-13 are directed to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. product or article of manufacture), and claims 15-16 and 18 are directed to a system (i.e. machine). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent and dependent claims recite obtaining information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. tasks to be completed, constraints (some physically inputted and regarding time, resources, labor, skillsets, etc., (abstract information)), location information, etc.,), data analysis and manipulation (including significantly using mathematical values and concepts (variables, optimization models, other models, calculations to get mathematical results,); information/data associations, comparing information, data organization, etc.,) to determine more abstract type information/data, and providing/displaying this determined data for further analysis and decision-making (scheduling). The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further data. The limitations of the independent claims (1, 8, 15) and dependent claims (2, 4-6, 9, 11-13, 16, 18, 21-27), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling and following rules or instructions)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships/models and mathematical calculations used to get results which are further used in the analysis and scheduling). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as 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 scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations then it falls within the Mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mathematical concepts grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/devices, etc., (for example, computers, systems, processors, devices, automatically, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interfaces, graphical interfaces/displays (input/output), etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 4-6, 21-27); non-transitory computer readable medium, computers, systems, processors, devices, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, devices, automatically, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interfaces, graphical interfaces/displays (input/output), etc., (in independent claim 8 and its dependent claims 9, 11-13); and systems, processors, devices, automatically, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interfaces, graphical interfaces/displays (input/output), etc., (independent claim 15 and its dependent claims 16 and 18)) in the context of the claims, the claim encompasses the above stated abstract idea of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling and following rules or instructions)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships/models and mathematical calculations used to get results which are further used in the analysis and scheduling). As shown above, the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/devices which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general-purpose computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The generic/general-purpose elements/terms/limitations (for example, computers, systems, processors, devices, automatically, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interfaces, graphical interfaces/displays (input/output), etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 4-6, 21-27); non-transitory computer readable medium, computers, systems, processors, devices, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, devices, automatically, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interfaces, graphical interfaces/displays (input/output), etc., (in independent claim 8 and its dependent claims 9, 11-13); and systems, processors, devices, automatically, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interfaces, graphical interfaces/displays (input/output), etc., (independent claim 15 and its dependent claims 16 and 18)) are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/ devices, etc. The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool.. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (as stated above) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims recite using known and/or generic computing devices and software (for example, computers, systems, processors, devices, automatically, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interfaces, graphical interfaces/displays (input/output), etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 4-6, 21-27); non-transitory computer readable medium, computers, systems, processors, devices, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, devices, automatically, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interfaces, graphical interfaces/displays (input/output), etc., (in independent claim 8 and its dependent claims 9, 11-13); and systems, processors, devices, automatically, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, interfaces, graphical interfaces/displays (input/output), etc., (independent claim 15 and its dependent claims 16 and 18)). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, ¶¶ 0080-0085 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The above rejection includes and details the discussion of dependent claims and the above rejection applies to all the dependent claim limitations. In summary, the dependent claims further state using obtained data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature), data analysis and manipulation (including significantly using mathematical values and concepts (variables, optimization models, other models, calculations to get mathematical results,)) to determine more abstract type information/data, and providing/displaying this determined data for further analysis and decision-making (scheduling). The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further data. The limitations of the dependent claims, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling and following rules or instructions)) and mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships/models and mathematical calculations used to get results which are further used in the analysis and scheduling).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computers and computing components/elements/devices (for example, computers, systems, processors, devices, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, graphical interfaces/displays (input/output), etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 4-6, 21-27); non-transitory computer readable medium, computers, systems, processors, devices, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, graphical interfaces/displays (input/output), etc., (in independent claim 8 and its dependent claims 9, 11-13); and systems, processors, devices, computers, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, graphical interfaces/displays (input/output), etc., (independent claim 15 and its dependent claims 16 and 18)) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions. The dependent claims also merely recites post-solution/extra-solution activities (with generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing components/devices/etc.,). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements. Also, the dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the juridical exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself.
Prior art discussion (not a prior art rejection – but remains rejected under §101 above)
As per the independent claims 1, 10, and 15, the closet prior art are Phan et al., (US 2022/0058590) in view of Shih et al., (US 2014/0229221).
However, neither Phan nor Shih (the closet prior art) disclose acquire the set of operations data including a plurality of tasks scheduled to be completed, and a plurality of operational constraints, wherein at least one operational constraint corresponds to an incident event occurring within the facility… representation of a first task of the plurality of tasks and the second sub-interface component comprises a representation of a first operational constraint of the plurality of operational constraints, wherein the first operational constraint corresponds to the incident event…determining, by the system, in response to the first operational constraint corresponding to the incident event, a predictive assignment of one or more resources or equipment components required for completion of the first task, wherein the predictive assignment is based on the optimization model and historical operations data; detecting, by the system, location information associated with a user device of a user assigned to the first task; and responsive to determining that the location information corresponds to a first task location associated with the first task, automatically transitioning the first task to an active execution state. Additionally, given the specific ordered combination of the claim elements in the independent claims cannot be found in the prior art (including art cited in PTO-892) and can only be found in Applicant’s Specification. The prior art of record (including art cite on PTO-892) does not teach or suggest (the reference individually or in combination) Applicant’s current independent claims as a whole (it is the entire claimed concept described by the limitations collectively coming together that is not rejected under prior art (the core concept is shown in the claim as a whole — limitations organized in the specific form and coming together collectively to form the concept)). Furthermore, any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all of the claim elements would not be obvious and would result in impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
As per the dependent claims, these claims depend on the independent claims above and incorporate the limitations thereof, and are therefore not rejected under prior art for at least the same rationale as applied to the independent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Note that all the claims are still rejected under §101 rejection and are therefore not allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the pertinent art is as follows:
Mandal et al., (US 2020/0371838): Discusses obtaining multiple operations configured to be performed in a serial fashion to implement a function. In some embodiments, each operation may be performed with respect to a parameter and an input. The method may also include obtaining an indication of multiple resources configured to perform the operations and a duration for each of the multiple resources to perform each of the multiple operations individually. The method may also include modeling, as a binary optimization, a scheduling of the resources to perform the multiple operations that reduces a total duration to perform the multiple operations based on the duration for each of the multiple resources to perform each of the multiple operations individually. The method may further include solving the binary optimization to determine a schedule of the multiple resources and performing, by the multiple resources, the multiple operations according to the schedule to implement the function.
Rajan et al., (US 20150220871): Illustrates methods and systems for scheduling a batch of tasks on one or more crowdsourcing platforms. The method includes generating one or more forecast models for each of the one or more crowdsourcing platforms based on historical data associated with each of the one or more crowdsourcing platforms and a robustness parameter. Thereafter, for a forecast model, from the one or more forecast models, associated with each of the one or more crowdsourcing platforms, a schedule is generated based on the forecast model and one or more parameters associated with the batch of tasks. Further, the schedule is executed on each of the one or more forecasts models associated with the one or more crowdsourcing platforms to determine a performance score of the schedule on each of the one or more forecast models. Finally, the schedule is recommended to a requestor based on the performance score.
Guo et al., (US 11,206,221): Relates to an online task dispatching and scheduling system. The system includes an end device; an access point (AP) configured to receive a task from the end device; one or more edge servers configured to receive the task from the AP, the one or more edge servers including a task waiting queue, a processing pool, a task completion queue, and a scheduler, wherein the AP further includes a dispatcher utilizing Online Learning (OL) for determining a real-time state of network conditions and server loads; and the AP selects a target edge server from the one or more edge servers to which the task is to be dispatched; and wherein the scheduler utilizes Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) in generating a task scheduling policy for the one or more edge servers.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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.
/GURKANWALJIT SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625