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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 18/204,655, filed on June 01, 2023. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection dated August 13, 2025, Applicant on December 07, 2025, amended claims 1 and 15 and cancelled claims 11 and 19. Claims 1-10, 12-18, 20 and 21 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are acknowledged.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed December 07, 2025 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks regarding the pending rejections will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed December 07, 2025.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states Amended independent claim 1 recites a server-executed auto-allocation technique that uses multiple structured datasets stored in a database (110). In addition, the amended claim now expressly recites:
"...wherein the auto-allocation technique selects an employee from the plurality of employees with the lowest score for (credit wallet balance + bid credit value) x (Number of employees in the staff group + 2)."
This limitation transforms the claim from a conceptual allocation process into a specific computer-executed scoring algorithm that computes a numeric score for each employee using multiple stored data fields. The auto-allocation no longer represents human judgment or conceptual reasoning; it is instead a rule-based computational evaluation performed by the work shift scheduling module (204).
The scoring algorithm requires the system to:
1. retrieve employee credit wallet balances from the database,
2. retrieve the bid credit value for the relevant shift,
3. retrieve the total number of employees in the staff group,
4. perform an arithmetic operation combining these values,
5. compute the resulting score for each employee, and
6. select the employee with the lowest computed score.
This is not a mental process. Humans do not naturally perform this particular formula across multiple dynamically changing datasets, nor does such an evaluation fall within the "organizing human activity" category. Instead, the claim recites a computer-specific technique for automated allocation based on structured digital data.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Examiner notes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), which explains claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. Examiner also finds the amended claim language is directed to an abstract idea that now includes methods of mathematical concepts. Specifically, methods based on mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations an mathematical relationships; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Furthermore, Examiner notes use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See; MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Examiner maintains the computer elements are used as tools to perform the instructions of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states the specification supports this technical architecture (e.g., FIG. 2, FIG. 15, FIG. 16), which discloses modules, datasets, database structures, and server-executed scheduling logic. The claim therefore requires:
1. storing multiple datasets in database 110;
2. retrieving these datasets programmatically;
3. computing a mathematically defined score for each employee; and
4. selecting and updating the appropriate shift assignment based on the computed
scores.
In McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., the court held that claims directed to a specific rule-based algorithm for improving computer functionality were patent- eligible. Similarly, amended claim 1 is directed to a specific, rule-based scoring formula constraining the auto-allocation behavior of the scheduling module.
In Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., claims directed to specific data structures and the way information is organized for computer processing were found non-abstract. Claim 1 likewise recites the use of multiple predefined datasets to drive automated scheduling behavior. Thus, amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1. It is directed to a technical improvement in automated workforce-scheduling systems.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and finds the abovementioned architecture is recited in the claim at a high level of generality and perform basic and well-known computer functions used to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. Examiner finds the present claims are not comparable to the technical improvements disclosed in Enfish and/or McRO. In regards to Enfish, the claims assert improvements in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database, which achieves benefits over conventional databases). Enfish disclosed sufficient support in the specification that the claims were directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. In regards to McRO, the claims demonstrated improvements to a specific technological process (i.e., lip synchronization and manipulation of character facial expressions), thus improving computer animation without requiring an artist's constant intermediation with significant support in the specification. Examiner finds Applicant’s invention aims to solve a business problem— workforce scheduling—rather than a technological one. The specification is silent in regards to improving the additional elements recited in the claims. Examiner finds there are no structural or functional advancement to any technology or technological field, in order for the additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner maintains the additional elements are used as generic tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea, which does integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f), requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states assuming arguendo that the Examiner continues to view scheduling as a judicial exception, the amended claim integrates any such exception into a meaningful practical application.
Amended claim 1 recites:
a server computing device with processor (1604), memory (1608), and communication module (1606);
structured datasets stored in database 110 (datasets 212, 216, 218, 222, 224, 226);
a server-executed scoring algorithm producing a deterministic numeric value for
each employee;
automated selection of the employee with the lowest score;
automatic updating of work shift assignments in the stored work shift data; and
automatic modification of credit wallet balances.
This is not a bare instruction to apply an abstract idea on a computer. It is a concrete, rule-driven computational process embedded within a networked scheduling architecture.
The scoring mechanism, in particular, transforms the allocation into a practical application: the server must perform a mathematical operation involving stored digital values to determine assignment. This is not insignificant "extra-solution activity," but the core technological improvement of the claim.
As in DDR Holdings, the system provides a technical solution to a computer-specific problem of how to automatically allocate work shifts based on multiple, heterogeneous, machine-stored datasets using a deterministic scoring formula that humans cannot feasibly compute in real time.
Therefore, amended claim 1 satisfies Step 2A, Prong 2 and is not "directed to" a judicial exception.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) is an example of a court case that presents an invention that is rooted in computer technology. Specifically, the court found when a third party's advertisement hyperlink was selected by a user on a host's web page, the system would automatically identify the host web page, retrieve corresponding "look and feel" information from storage for the host page and generate a hybrid web page including the merchant information from the third-party web page with the "look and feel" elements of the host's website. This is different from conventional Internet hyperlink operations which would redirect a user to the third-party page away from the host's web page when the hyperlink is activated and therefore added a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. In contrast, there is no similar improvement here. Examiner finds, Applicant is attempting to say general computer functions and the Step 2A-Prong One elements, the abstract idea, are what makes the claim eligible. Applicant has not identified any limitations in the claimed invention that shows or submits that the technology used is being improved or there was a problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves. Examiner respectfully notes merely confining the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not establish a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. “A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit.” In re Mohapatra, 842 F. App’x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Examiner maintains the claims recite addition elements used as tools to perform the instructions of the abstract idea without disclosing limitations that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do these elements provide meaningful limitations that transforms the judicial exception into significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states under Step 2B, the claim still recites an inventive concept even if the Examiner were to conclude that it contains an abstract idea.
The Federal Circuit in BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility held that an inventive concept may arise from a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known components.
Here, the inventive concept includes:
the combination of six different structured datasets stored in database 110;
a rule-based scoring formula that uses the values in these datasets to compute a numeric score for each employee;
the computation of the formula (credit wallet balance + bid credit value) x (Number of employees + 2) for all candidates;
selecting the employee with the lowest score;
automatically updating shift assignments in the database; and
automatically adjusting credit wallet balances.
This arrangement is neither generic nor conventional. No standard scheduling system calculates a mathematically defined allocation score using these specific datasets and formula. No conventional workforce-scheduling practice computes such a score for every employee or uses it to drive deterministic automated re-assignment.
The ordered combination results in:
a server-driven computation pipeline,
multi-dataset numerical evaluation,
deterministic selection based on computed scores, and
automated database updates.
This is the type of "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement" that BASCOM recognized as providing an inventive concept.
Therefore, the amended claims recite "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea and satisfy Step 2B.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes, the analysis in Step 2B addresses the question on whether an additional element (or combination of additional elements) represents well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities. Examiner notes BASCOM was found eligible based on considerations relevant to Part 2B (does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea) of the two-part framework outlined in MPEP § 2106; where claim 1 "carve[s] out a specific location for the filtering system (a remote ISP server) and require the filtering system to give users the ability to customize filtering for their individual network accounts". In contrast, the amended claims do not recite similar features. Examiner finds Applicant is again, attempting to say the Step 2A-Prong One elements, the abstract idea, is what makes the claim eligible and finds Applicant’s claim is not analogous to the improvements regarding network customization in BASCOM. Applicant has provided no detailed explanation to the configuration of the combination of additional elements nor has Applicant identified any disclosure in the claimed invention showing and/or submitting that the technology used is being improved, there was a technical problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves, or the ordered combinations of the known elements is significantly more than workforce scheduling that manages employee work schedules and wallet credit balances. Examiner maintains the additional elements recited in the claims do not perform any unconventional functions that can be considered “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Therefore, Examiner maintains the claims recite addition elements used as tools to perform the instructions of the abstract idea without disclosing limitations that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do these elements provide meaningful limitations that transforms the judicial exception into significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: missing word. The claim limitation “a server computing device with a processor, a memory, and a communication module” should recite “via a server computing device with a processor, a memory, and a communication module” or similar language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: limitations should not include drawing item numbers in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1-10 and 12-14 are directed towards a method and claims 15-18, 20 and 21 are directed towards a system, both of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1-10, 12-18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite managing employee work schedules and wallet credit balances.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Specifically, creating a rotation by a manager, wherein the rotation comprises one or more employees as a part of a staff group, work shifts, and a rotation period, wherein each employee of the one or more employees is assigned a predefined shift work credit value and the predefined shift work credit value is added to a corresponding credit wallet balance associated with each employee of the one or more employees; allowing a first employee of the one or more employees to bid for avoiding a work shift, wherein the bid comprises a bid credit value, wherein the bid credit value is a part of the credit wallet balance; receiving the bid for avoiding the work shift from the first employee and the one or more employees; allowing a second employee of the one or more employees to sign up to take the bid work shift before auto-allocation; determining whether the second employee or the one or more employees self-assign the bid work shift before auto-allocation; assigning the bid work shift to the second employee if the second employee self-assigned the bid work shift; or auto assigning the bid work shift to the one or more employees based on an auto-allocation technique that uses electronic data, including work shift data (212), employee profile data (216), employee availability data (218), employee preferences data (222), employee location data (224), and employee history data (226), if no self-assignment occurs, wherein the auto-allocation technique select an employee from plurality of employee with the lowest score for credit wallet balance+bid credit value * Number of employees in the staffgroup/2; rescheduling the work shifts of the first employee, the second employee or the employee assigned with the auto allocated bid work shift; and adjusting the credit wallet balance of the first employee, and the second employee or the employee assigned with the auto allocated bid work shift constitutes methods based on mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations an mathematical relationships, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as well as methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of a server computing device with a processor, a memory, and a communication module, admin user interface, employee user interface and a database does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 15 recites certain method of organizing human activity for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites using electronic data stored in a database, which is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 1 recites a server computing device with a processor, a memory, and a communication module, admin user interface, employee user interface and a database at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and therefore is directed to an abstract idea. The system comprising a processor coupled to memory, admin user interface and employee user interface recited in claim 15 also amounts to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements recited in claim 15 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including the system comprising a processor coupled to memory, admin user interface and employee user interface amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); and electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claim 3 recites limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claim 2 recites sending a communication message to the one or more employee on creation of the rotation, which is considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 4 recites opening a hyperlink via the employee user interface and claim 10 recites automatic shift allocation via the admin user interface, both of which merely recite instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 4-10, 12-14, 16-18, 20 and 21 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea by reciting methods that constitute certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes and mathematical concepts, respectively. Therefore claims 2-10, 12-14, 16-18, 20 and 21 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Andaker (US 20240403949 A1) – Provided is a method and system for scheduling employees to a work shift based on the undesirability of one or more employees for the work shift. The method includes creating a rotation by a manager and assigning a predefined shift work credit value to each employee, sending a communication message corresponding to the rotation to the employees, allowing an employee to bid for a work shift to avoid being called on for the work shift based on the communication message, receiving the bid for the work shift from the employee, allowing another employee to sign up to take the work shift, rescheduling the work shifts of the employee bidding to avoid the work shift and the another employee desiring to accept that work shift, and adjusting the shift work credit value of the both the employees.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Patty 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.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights