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
1. This Final Office action is in reply to the Applicant amendment filed on 12 April 2026.
2. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2 and 8 have been cancelled.
3. Claims 1 and 3-7 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
In the previous office action, Claims 1-8 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea). Applicants have not amended now Claims 1 and 3-7 to provide statutory support and the rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection for Claims 1 and 3-7, Applicant argues that: the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Still commensurate to the two-part subject matter eligibility framework decision in the Federal court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., (Alice), 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update), and the new “July 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, including on Artificial Intelligence”, and the Examiner details the maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the below rejection with further explanation. Applicant argues that as amended, Applicant states basically the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea with references to Applicants’ below recited and amended claim limitations (see Remarks/Arguments pages 2-4). However the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen below in the maintained rejection with further clarification, the claims still recite Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; Certain methods of organizing human activity –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); and Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). In summary as indicated below through Steps 1-2B, the recitation of a computer (one or more processors) to perform the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Applicants’ amendments have overcome the previous cited prior art rejection.
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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process:
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are still not focused to a statutory category of invention set. Although the preamble of independent Claim 1 recites “computerized-method”, there are no additional computer architecture components recited within the body of at least Claim 1 to provide a proper statutory category of invention for the step limitations, meaning a person/user is manually/mentally prioritizing agents for working from office. Despite this continued failure to pass Step 1, the Examiner proceeds to the next steps of the analysis.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1-8 recite limitations that set forth the abstract ideas, namely, the claims as a whole recite the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim at hand is simply a computerized method for scheduling and assigning tasks to employees based on health compliance and productivity scores. The claims recite steps for, generally, “prioritizing agents for working from office” and the steps are considered "directed to" an abstract idea because they constitute a method of organizing human activity and numerical calculations without inherently improving the computer's functionality itself (rather using the computer as a tool to automate the scheduling) by:
“when creating a schedule for a period, via the WFM application:
(i) getting one or more skills for each day in the schedule, wherein each skill is having an associated priority;
(ii) allocating agents for each skill in descending order of priority associated to the skill by: for each skill that requires agents to work from office:
a. getting forecast agents count for the skill;
b. allocating agents to office location based on office capacity and a calculated Agent Work From Office (AWFO) score in ascending order and Agent Health (AH) score greater than ‘0’ until office capacity is full or agent requirements for the skill are fulfilled;
when the agents count for the skill is not fulfilled, allocating agents to work from home based on an associated Agent Home Productivity (AHP) score in descending order;
when the skill doesn't require agents to work from office, allocating agents to work from home based on the associated AHP score in descending order;
wherein the AWFO score and the AHP score are calculated by: operating an Agent Work From Office (AWFO) Prioritization Analytics module, said AWFO Prioritization Analytics module comprising: for each agent in the data store of agents' metrics: calculating an Agent Health (AH) score wherein the calculating of AH score is operated by retrieving agent’s health metrics from the data store of agents’ metrics and comparing with government and organization rules and regulations; when the AH score is ‘1’ then: calculating:
AHP score;
(ii) Agent Skills Prioritization (ASP) score;
and (iii) agent's preferences to work from office indicator;
and determining an AWFO score based on the AHP score, the ASP score and the agent's preferences to work from office indicator,
wherein the WFM application gets the available office capacity for the skill and then allocates agents to work from office till office capacity is full or the agent requirement for the skill are fulfilled,
wherein when agent count is not fulfilled, the WFM application gets unallocated agents and assigns agents as per descending order of their AHP to work from home or isolated location; and
wherein after an agent is selected to work from office the agent's preferences to work from office indicator is reset to zero to ensure rotational basis of agents”
These claims fall under the categories:
(a) Mathematical concepts- mathematical calculations, mathematical formulas or equations- i.e., (AH score; ASP score; AWFO score), specifically “calculating AWFO/AHP/ASP scores”.
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity –the process of organizing human activity—managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Calculating an "Agent Home Productivity (AHP) score," an "Agent Skills Prioritization (ASP) score," and prioritizing agent allocation based on business rules constitutes managing a business process and tracking human behavior. Scheduling employees based on preferences (office/home), productivity, and skill priority. While the process is implemented by a WFM application, the core actions (ranking, prioritizing, and assigning personnel) are fundamental business practices that can be performed mentally or with basic tools
(c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claim describes gathering data (forecast agents, office capacity, health metrics, productivity, skills) and evaluating it against "rules". Because evaluating this data is essentially a cognitive, mental exercise that could theoretically be performed using pen and paper, it is a mental process.
See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Because the steps describe a method for analyzing data, assessing workforce compliance, and applying mathematical scoring to prioritize scheduling, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components.
Prong Two: Claims 1-8: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claim 1 does not recite additional elements directed to support the claim step limitations. Even though the claim involves using a "WFM application" (computerization) to make data calculations, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that merely implementing a long-standing business practice (work scheduling and allocation) on a computer or generic processor does not change the fact that the underlying concept is an abstract idea. The generic hardware simply acts as a tool to execute the abstract scheduling logic faster. Therefore, the claims are not a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using a mental/manual process, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
Step 2B: (As explained in MPEP § 2106.05), Claims 1-8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea manually/mentally and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
The Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of a mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more. For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Chan et al. (US 2014/0355750)
Peters et al. (US 11854551)
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights