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: 18/338,764, filed on June 21, 2023. In response to Examiner's Non-Final Office Action dated March 03, 2026, Applicant on May 27, 2026 amended claims 1, 10, and 16. Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-18 and 20-23 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 May 27, 2026 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed May 27, 2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states as an initial matter, the claims as amended recite specific technical implementations that go beyond merely organizing human activity or mental processes. Amended claim 1 now recites, among other things: receiving a shift trade request "via an agent user interface displayed on a computing device"; "automatically matching, by the processor, the shift trade request with a plurality of target agents that are available on the shift day and the shift time by querying a workforce management database"; "automatically calculating, by the processor, a trade index score"; "displaying, on the agent user interface of the computing device, the ranked plurality of target agents"; "transmitting, over a network, the shift trade request to a manager computing device"; receiving approval "via a manager user interface displayed on the manager computing device"; and "automatically changing, by the processor, a schedule of the source agent and the selected target agent stored in the workforce management database.".
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds the amendments recite additional elements that merely confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use; see MPEP 2106.05(h) and does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). Examiner finds the pending claims recite similar limitations to claims the courts have indicated may not be sufficient in showing an improvement in computer-functionality, such as accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017), A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Therefore, Examiner maintains the claims recite additional elements used as tools to perform the instructions of the abstract idea without disclosing limitations that integrate 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 even assuming arguendo that the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims integrate any such abstract idea into a practical application. The USPTO's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance provides that a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application when the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior systems. As illustrated in Example 37, a claim that recites "automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use" was found to integrate a mental process into a practical application because "the additional elements recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices".
Similarly, Example 42 demonstrates that a method for managing medical records was found eligible at Step 2A, Prong Two because the claim recited "a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user."
The present claims, as amended, recite analogous improvements (see p. 10, Applicant Remarks).
The claimed system provides a specific technical improvement to workforce management systems by automatically processing data from the workforce management database, calculating composite scores using multiple weighted factors, and presenting ranked results through the user interface before any trade request is sent. This is not merely applying an abstract idea using generic computer components, but rather represents a specific technical solution that improves the functioning of the workforce management system itself.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds in Example 37, the claim as a whole integrated the mental process into a practical application because the additional elements recited a specific manner of automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use, which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. Claim 1 of Example 42 as a whole, integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Examiner finds no comparable improvements recited in the present invention. The claim does not reflect any improvement to the computer components, but instead the improvement is directed towards the operating conditions (e.g., workforce management) of generating updated schedules based on managing shift trade requests between source agents and target agents. Examiner finds Applicant has not identified any limitations in the claimed invention that show or submit that the computer technology used is being improved or there was a problem in or with the computer technology that the claimed invention solves.
Examiner further notes the advancements disclosed in Diamond v. Diehr, and SiRF Technology v. ITC recite improvements to a technology or technical field. Specifically, Diamond v. Diehr utilized the Arrhenius equation to improve the process of controlling the operations of a mold in curing rubber parts, and SiRF Technology v. ITC disclosed a GPS receiver utilizing software that applies a mathematical formula to improve the ability to determine its position in weak environments. In contrast, Examiner finds there are no similar improvements here. Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments are directed to improvements to an existing business process (e.g. workforce management) and not the recited device components. 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 are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states the claims recite specific technical elements including: querying a workforce management database to match shift trade requests; automatically calculating trade index scores by the processor; displaying ranked results on the agent user interface of the computing device; transmitting requests over a network to a manager computing device; and automatically changing schedules stored in the workforce management database. These elements work together as an integrated system that provides a specific improvement in how shift trading is facilitated through the WFM system.
Accordingly, the claims as amended integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection.
Thus, the subject matter of the claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-18, and 20-23 amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
In view of the above, the claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-18, and 20-23 are directed to patentable subject matter. Thus, it is respectfully requested that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be reconsidered and withdrawn.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and finds Applicants arguments are not technical in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Examiner finds Applicant is attempting to say the Step 2A-Prong One elements, the abstract idea, is what makes the claim eligible. 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 ordered combinations of the known elements is significantly more than the abstract idea. 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 because none of the pending claim limitations recite improvements to the functioning of the computer, any other technology or technological field. Examiner maintains the improvement is directed towards generating updated schedules based on managing shift trade requests between source agents and target agents. 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 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 1-4, 6-9 and 21 are directed towards a system claims 10-12, 14, 15 and 22 are directed towards a method and claims 16-18, 20 and 23 are directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite generating updated schedules based on managing shift trade requests between source agents and target agents.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Specifically, receiving a shift trade request from a source agent, wherein the shift trade request comprises a shift day and a shift time; automatically matching the shift trade request with a plurality of target agents that are available on the shift day and the shift time; for each target agent from the plurality of target agents, calculating a trade index score based on a trade history success index score, a matching skill index score, a skill proficiency index score, and a trade interval index score; ranking the plurality of target agents from highest to lowest trade index score; and automatically changing a schedule of the source agent and the selected target agent according to the shift trade request constitutes methods based on managing relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions, as well as, methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of a system comprising: a processor operably coupled to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a plurality of stored instructions executable by the processor to perform operations, agent user interface displayed on a computing device, workforce management database, network, manager computing device and manager user interface displayed on the manager computing device does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 10 and 16 recite certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes 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 querying a workforce management database, displaying, on the agent user interface of the computing device, the ranked plurality of target agents with the target agent having the highest trade index score at the top of a list; receiving, from the source agent via the agent user interface, a selection of a target agent; transmitting, over a network, the shift trade request to a manager computing device; receiving, from the manager via a manager user interface displayed on the manager computing device, approval of the shift trade request and a schedule of the source agent and the selected target agent stored in the workforce management database, which are limitations considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claim 1 recites a system comprising: a processor operably coupled to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a plurality of stored instructions executable by the processor to perform operations, agent user interface displayed on a computing device, workforce management database, network, manager computing device and manager user interface displayed on the manager computing device at a high-level of generality such that it 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 element do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The agent user interface displayed on a computing device, workforce management database, network, manager computing device and manager user interface displayed on the manager computing device recited in the method of claim 10 and non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions executable by a processor to perform operations, an agent user interface displayed on a computing device, workforce management database, network, manager computing device and manager user interface displayed on the manager computing device recited in claim 16 also amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements recited in claims 10 and 16 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 a system comprising: a processor operably coupled to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a plurality of stored instructions executable by the processor to perform operations, agent user interface displayed on a computing device, workforce management database, network, manager computing device and manager user interface displayed on the manager computing device and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions executable by a processor 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); electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). 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 claims 3, 4, 11 12, 17 and 18 recites receiving and transmitting limitations respectively, which are considered insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Additionally, claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20-23 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in the independent claims. Therefore claims 2-4, 6-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20-23 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.
Partridge et al. (US 20070250370 A1) – A scheduling application providing information and management through SMS messaging and other related communication methods is proposed. The application can allow a user to create and modify a database of user contact and schedule information, and then utilize this information to produce a schedule for a select group of users. Information related to this schedule can then be communicated to the users through the stored contact information, and modifications and updates to the schedule can be made based on user response.
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 on (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