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 .
Status of Claim
This action is in response to application filed on 27 of April 2026.
Claims 1, 9, and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-18, and 20 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that the claims are directed to a computer-implemented scheduling architecture, defining how computers are used, not merely that computers are used. Further, humans exchanging schedules orally or on paper do not batch multiple non-consecutive days into a single transaction, route that transaction through a constrained user-interface-driven workflow, automatically evaluate approval criteria at a server, and synchronously update a shared schedule database, in the manner as recited in amended independent claims 1, 9, and 13. Accordingly, the claims are neither directed to ''methods of organizing human activity'', nor to ''mental processes'' that can be practically performed in the human mind, even when viewed at a reasonable level of abstraction. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A Prong I, the examiner is tasked with determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception, if not the claims are eligible, if yes, the examiner then analyzes whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such as using the computer-implement scheduling architecture (i.e. software package). The claims are aimed at an exchange/trade between human 'target agents' using a computer system for data comparison against a set of criteria. Humans have been exchanging/trading data including agent schedule based on shift parameters (e.g. shift start time, shift end time, shift day, shift activity, required shift skill, or the like, see ¶50) with one another and compiling relational information for batch processing long before the advent of computers and the Internet of Things by interacting with one another and writing down the changes, both which are deemed mental processes and managing personal behavior. Therefore, the claims are aimed at abstract ideas and the examiner moves on the Prong 2.
Applicant asserts the claims do not merely reflect a reduction in the number of requests as an incidental outcome. Instead, the claimed system affirmatively batches multiple single-day trade requests into a single-combined request for approval. This batching changes how data is structured, transmitted, evaluated, and written to persistent storage. Claim 1 as amended affirmatively combines multiple requests into a single request-analogous to actively combining multiple vehicles into a single vehicle to reduce traffic. In other words, the claimed invention restructures how transactions are processed by combining multiple discrete requests into a single network message and a single approval workflow. This reduces message overhead, repetitive validation checks, and database write operations, thereby improving the functioning of computerized workforce management systems. For example, the specification at paragraphs [0097]-[0098] clearly describes how existing WFM applications handle only single-day requests, and the claimed invention specifically departs from this by batching multi-day requests as a single combined request for approval. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not disclose the steps taken by the computer system to achieve said batching (i.e. data is structured, transmitted, evaluated, and written to persistent storage). While the specification may help illuminate the true focus of a claim, when analyzing patent eligibility, reliance on the specification must always yield to the claim language in identifying that focus." Id. at 766; see also Trinity Info Media, 72 F.4th at 1363 ("Our focus is on the claims, as informed by the specification."). At bottom, we must "articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful." Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Therefore, the invention remains an observation (i.e. a mental process) of determining the recommendation information corresponding to the user identifier based on skills and a mathematical calculation (i.e. a mathematical concept) of determining a scored value via a scoring model merely applied by generic computer components disclosed at a high level of generality and do not satisfy the Alice Test. Therefore, claim 1 does not purport to improve the functioning of the computer components themselves, nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, claim 1 amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using generic computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
Applicant asserts that the recited user interface is not a generic display because it presents a curated list of identified target agents generated by the server; and receives a selection of a subset of those agents, which directly controls which agents receive the multi-day trade request. The examiner respectfully disagrees. These steps are insignificant extra solution activities as disclosed in the MPEP 2106.05(g), such as “mere data gathering”.
Applicant asserts that the claims further require that, if the predefined approval criteria are satisfied, the system automatically approves the multi-day trade request and automatically adjusts schedules in a schedule database. This is a concrete computer operation that synchronizes shared data structures and eliminates manual reconciliation, further underscoring that the claims are rooted in computerized processing rather than human decision-making. Taken together, these elements apply any alleged abstract idea in a specific manner that improves computerized scheduling and networked workforce management systems, and therefore integrate the claims into a practical application, consistent with Step 2A, Prong Two. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Once again, the fact pattern doesn’t support applicant’s assertions. “Automatically” in this case equates to “by a computer” under BRI, and the predefined approval criteria is set by a manager (i.e. a human), see ¶80. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.
Applicant asserts that the claimed invention addresses a problem specific to computerized workforce management systems.-namely, the inefficiencies caused by processing multiple single-day trade requests through repetitive network transmissions and approval cycles. The solution recited in the claims is therefore rooted in computer technology, consistent with McRO. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As pointed out by the applicant’s arguments, the subject matter recited in the McRO claims is different from the subject matter recited in Applicant's claims. McRO solves a problem rooted in technology turning an abstract idea into an improvement to technology, while as noted above the current claims are aimed at shift exchange which has been done by humans long before the advent of the computer and the internet. The same holds true about applicant’s reliance on Bascom. As noted above, none of the steps/functions of independent/dependent claims whether taken alone or in an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, no inventive concept can be found in any unconventional or non-generic combination of known pieces (i.e. a processor and memory) similar to Bascom. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
The examiner notes that batching is a well-understood, routine, and conventional operation within the world of computer. There is a level of generality in the Spec ¶97-98 as tested per MPEP 2106.05(d) I 2 (a):
US 20160078532 A1, ¶20 "In the existing MAG system, there exists a maintenance time window in which the system is brought down to perform batch processing, such as reconstructing the computation graph and re-priming the system with data according to latest trading information.", also e.g. ¶25, 29,45, 50-52
US 20150339600 A1, ¶8 "or example, it is common to analyze the data overnight in a batch process, when a processor is not heavily used.", ¶27 "This updating of the stored statistical model 50 in update step 230 happens in real time or could be initiated in a batch process, for example overnight when the system 10 has available processing capacity."
Applicant asserts that the claims are analogous to the eligible claim in USPTO Example 42 (Method for Transmission of Notifications When Medical Records Are Updated). In Example 42, Claim I was found eligible because it 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 examiner respectfully disagrees. The 2019 PEG Example 42 discloses an updated patient information which is converted into a standardized format via a graphical user interface nested into a hardware and software platform that is network-based in which the exchange and storage of information between different entities (hospital, laboratory, medical provider) takes place on the cloud. This is not a similar concept to the instant application. Applicant’s rationale for this assertion is merely based on the fact that since Example 421 includes a GUI, a network, memory, and processor then adding a limitation that recites similar computer components will make the claims of the instant application eligible. This would only work if eligibility analysis is determined in a vacuum and is merely reliant on claim language absent any consideration of the invention as a whole as described in the original specification as filed. Further, the Example 42 recites the details regarding how a computer aids the method meanwhile that is missing in the instant application. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception. Example 42 provided a technological solution to an issue rooted in computer technology. Applicant’s claims do not recite the same fact pattern. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Desjardins does not set new standards for the Alice test, instead it reminds us all to follow the MPEP and the 2019 PEG when analyzing claims under USC101. The examiner has abided by all steps and has not oversimplified the claims as alleged by the applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-6, 8-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 13 recites “at least one processor; and a computer readable storage medium containing instruction which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: identify, by a server, a set of target agents associated with a corresponding set of shift parameters that satisfy a set of preferences of a multi-day trade request initiated by a source agent using a user interface presented on an agent terminal, wherein the multi-day trade request relates to two or more non-consecutive days, wherein the set of shift parameters are sent via the user interface from the agent terminal to the server over a network, and wherein the multi-day request comprises a single request for the two or more non-consecutive days, wherein the multi-day trade request batches multiple single day trade requests as a single combined request for approval, thereby reducing network traffic and use of computer resources and power; present, via the user interface, a list of the identified set of target agents, and receive, via the user interface, a selection of a sub-set of the identified target agents by the source agent; and send, over the network, the multi-day trade request to the selected sub-set of the identified target agents; and wherein: if a first target agent of the sub-set accepts the multi-day trade request, and if the multi-day trade request satisfies a pre-defined set of approval criteria, then automatically approve the multi-day trade request between the source agent and said first target agent of the sub-set to accept the multi- day trade request, and automatically adjust a schedule of the source agent and the first target agent to reflect the approved multi-day trade request, wherein the adjusting is reflected in a schedule database included in the server; else: automatically reject the multi-day trade request”. Claim 1 discloses similar limitations as Claim 13, as disclosed, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 9 recites “sending over the network, by a server comprising the processor, a shift trade request to a first agent, wherein the first agent is selected by a second agent from a list generated by the computer processor based on a set of shift trade request preferences submitted by the second agent using a user interface presented on an agent terminal of the second agent, wherein the set of shift trade request preferences are sent via the user interface from the agent terminal to the server over a network, and wherein the shift trade request comprises a single request for the two or more non-consecutive days, wherein the shift trade request batches multiple single day trade requests as a single combined request for approval, thereby reducing network traffic and use of computer resources and power; and automatically updating a schedule of the first agent and the second agent if: the shift trade request is accepted by the first agent; a skill of the first agent matches a skill of the second agent; and the first agent and second agent belong to a same scheduling unit, wherein the updating is reflected in a schedule database included in the server; else: automatically rejecting the shift trade request, wherein if the shift trade request accepted by the first agent is automatically rejected due to a skill of the first agent not matching a skill of the second agent, or due to the first agent and second agent not belonging to the same scheduling unit, then automatically re-sending the shift trade request to one or more other agents on the list generated by the computer processor”, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1, 9, and 13 are directed to “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity” such as “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”, and “Mental Processes” such as “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10-11, 14-18, and 20 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1, 9, and 13 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 1, 9, and 13 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element(s) italicized above reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1, 9, and 13 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. The claim recites the additional elements described above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶43-44 "Operating system 115 may be or may include code to perform tasks involving coordination, scheduling, arbitration, or managing operation of computing device 100, for example, scheduling execution of programs. Memory 120 may be or may include, for example, a Random Access Memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), a Flash memory, a volatile or non-volatile memory, or other suitable memory units or storage units. Memory 120 may be or may include a plurality of different memory units. Memory 120 may store for example, instructions (e.g. code 125) to carry out methods as disclosed herein, and/or data as disclosed herein such as agent data (e.g. skill data), schedule data (e.g. shift times, scheduled work days, scheduling unit), shift parameters, agent preferences, approval criteria, validation criteria, or any other type of data. [0044] Executable code 125 may be any application, program, process, task, or script. Executable code 125 may be executed by controller 105 possibly under control of operating system 115. For example, executable code 125 may be or execute one or more applications performing methods as disclosed herein, such as for updating an assignment of resources. In some embodiments, more than one computing device 100 or components of device 100 may be used. One or more processor(s) 105 may be configured to carry out embodiments of the present invention by, for example, executing software or code. Storage 130 may be or may include, for example, a hard disk drive, a floppy disk drive, a compact disk (CD) drive, a universal serial bus (USB) device or other suitable removable and/or fixed storage unit. Data described herein may be stored in a storage 130 and may be loaded from storage 130 into a memory 120 where it may be processed by controller 105. Input devices 135 may be or may include a mouse, a keyboard, a touch screen or pad or any suitable input device or combination of devices. Output devices 140 may include one or more displays, speakers and/or any other suitable output devices or combination of output devices. Any applicable input/output (I/O) devices may be connected to computing device 100, for example, a wired or wireless network interface card (NIC), a modem, printer, a universal serial bus (USB) device or external hard drive may be included in input devices 135 and/or output devices 140”.
Claims 2-6, 8, 10-11, 14-18, and 20 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Conclusion
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-a273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 6/11/2026
Prosecution Insights