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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 05, 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 18/338,764, filed on June 21, 2023. In response to Examiner's Final Office Action dated August 12, 2025, Applicant filed Arguments/Remarks on February 05, 2026. 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.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are hereby withdrawn in light of Applicants arguments/remarks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed February 05, 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 February 05, 2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states the claims are directed to an improved agent user interface that allows agents to trade directly with one another, rather than to organizing human activity or mental processes. Advantageously, the list of target agents is displayed on the user interface before the source agent sends a trade request to any other agents or a manager. This helps source agents estimate the probability of having a successful trade and to choose the best match options. See Specification at Paragraph [0021]. In particular, the user interface displays the trade index score to help the source agent select the most suitable target agents for their trade request. The above claims recite an improved approach to shift trade success rates by providing an objective, data- backed assessment of potential trades compared to subjective decisions.
Therefore, the present claims do not merely cover certain methods of organizing human activity or abstract methods of a mental process, and do not fit into any of the abstract idea groupings required to reject the claims under Step 2A, Prong One as discussed in the 2019 Guidance. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of the pending claims as amended be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Additionally, Applicant states The Office Action states that claim 1 recites displaying, on the agent user interface, 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 the shift trade request to a manager; and receiving, from the manager via a manager user interface, approval of the shift trade request are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data.
Moreover, the interaction of the source agent with the agent user interface and the interaction of the manager with the manager user interface facilitates the shift trading between agents. This is important because it enhances flexibility by allowing agents to manage their schedules better. It also improves agent satisfaction by providing the option to swap shifts, which can lead to higher job satisfaction and morale. It also ensures adequate staffing by maintaining proper staffing levels. The present claims implement a real-time trade impact forecasting dashboard that predicts workforce balance changes before a trade is executed, evaluates overtime impact or cost implications if a trade is accepted, and minimizes or even prevents understaffing by forecasting shift coverage gaps and adjusts schedule(s) accordingly (see p. 10-13, Applicant Remarks).
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds the agent user interface provides the function of receiving and displaying data, which are considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data and does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Examiner notes DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 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. Advancements in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) were found eligible because the claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices, as well as, the improvements to the user interface for electronic devices. Example 37 integrated the mental process into a practical application because the additional elements automatically move 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. Examiner finds no similar improvements to the user interface recited in the present invention. Examiner finds Applicants abovementioned remarks improve an existing business process (e.g. schedule management) and not a technology, technological field or computer related technology (i.e., user interface). Examiner respectfully maintains, general purpose computer elements/structure, similar to the claimed inventions additional elements (i.e., 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, manager user interface and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions executable by a processor to perform operations), used to apply a judicial exception, by use of instructions implemented on a computer, has not been found by the courts to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite and are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states in the present case (and as further explained below), the combination of elements of (Applicant cites Claim 1, see p. 14, Applicant Remarks), for example, is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field of shift trading.
In view of the above, independent claims 1, 10, and 16 are directed to patentable subject matter. Dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 20-23 depend from and further limit claim 1, 10, or 16, and are directed to patentable subject matter for at least the same reasons as claims 1, 10, and 16. Thus, it is respectfully requested that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be reconsidered and withdrawn.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is respectfully reminded novelty and non-obviousness over the prior art, have no bearing on whether a claim recites or is directed to an abstract idea. The Federal Circuit has made this clear - rejecting an argument substantially similar to Applicants’ in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("We do not agree . . . that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete."). Examiner 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 finds Applicant is attempting to say the Step 2A-Prong One elements, the abstract idea, is what makes the claim eligible. Applicant has not 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 instructions used to facilitate updating schedules based on managing shift trade requests between source agents and target agents. 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 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. For at least these reasons, the pending 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; 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 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 and manager user interface 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 displaying, on the agent user interface, 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 the shift trade request to a manager; and receiving, from the manager via a manager user interface, approval of the shift trade request, 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 and manager user interface 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 and manager user interface recited in claim 10 and non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions executable by a processor to perform operations, agent user interface and manager user interface 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 processor operably coupled to a non-transitory readable medium, agent user interface, manager user interface 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.
Distinguishable over the Prior Art of Record
The prior art rejections of the amended claims are removed in light of Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed February 05, 2026, in particular pg. 15-26 regarding the prior art of record. Examiner analyzed amended claim 1 in view of the prior art on record and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine references with a reasonable expectation of success.
Leamon et al. (US 7058589 B1) teaches planning, scheduling and managing personnel in an environment in which there is a varying workload by time of day and by day of week to be staffed with a variable number of agents having varying preferences (see col. 1, ln. 12-15). Specifically, Leamon discloses assigning a group of agents to a plurality of available schedules, including determining preferences for a plurality of factors for each agent. Each agent provides an order of importance for the plurality of factors. For each factor, a difference value for that factor between a preliminarily assigned schedule (or pool of unassigned schedules) and each agent's preference for that factor is determined. The difference value for each factor is assigned to a vector for each agent. Then, for each agent, a vector for each schedule not assigned to that agent is determined. Vectors for every other agent are also calculated for every schedule swap involving the current agent. The schedule having the lowest vector is then assigned for each agent (see Abstract). The potential preferences shown are: number of days worked, days off pattern, number of days for particular tour group member, which days of the week are worked for a particular tour group member, tour start times 140 and start time consistency. Any criteria may be advantageously accounted for using the method and system of the present invention (see col. 3, ln. 7-15) and a numerical value representing how each set of schedules fit's each agent's preference factors are compiled into a multi-word vector. Each type of preference is assigned a bit range within the vector. The bits used in each range represent the difference (or absolute value of the difference) between the assigned schedule and the preferred schedule for each preference. For daily values, the bits assigned represent the sum of the differences for each day of the week. Where an agent has a list of preferences, the difference will be calculated specifically for each type of preference. Where an agent has no preferences, the "difference" will be either predefined or calculated specifically for each type of preferences. The order of the bit ranges is determined by the priority ranking list provided by the agent or by default. The highest priority is assigned to highest order bit range. The lowest priority is assigned to lowest order bit range. The other priorities are place in the intervening bit ranges in order of priority. In this manner, each agent has a vector that can be calculated for any schedule indicating a prioritized fit of that schedule for that agent (see col. 3 , ln. 33-53)
However, Leamon, individually or in combination with the prior art of record, does not explicitly teach the combination of claim limitations as recited in independent claim 1. Thus, claim 1 is found to be distinguishable over the prior art. Claims 10 and 16 are distinguishable over the prior art for similar reasons as cited for claim 1. Dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20-23 are distinguishable because it depends on claims 1, 10 and 16 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barni (US 20050177407 A1) – The present invention provides a method and apparatus for trading employee schedules online. One or more rules for determining which schedules may be traded are defined. One or more employee schedules are posted for trade. For each posted schedule, the requirements of the schedule that the employee would like in exchange are also posted. Two schedules are matched for trading based on (a) their respective requirements for the schedule required in return, and (b) the rules that were previously defined. If two schedules match, then the trade is approved, and the schedules traded.
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