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 reply in response to communications filed on 27 of October 2025.
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/27/2025 has been entered.
Response to Argument/Remarks
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that the combination of technological elements operations recited in claim 1 as amended (e.g., adjusting a schedule which is reflected in a database included at a server receiving parameters from the agent terminal over a network) could not be performed by humans, in the mind or using pen and paper, under a reasonable interpretation. 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. Humans have been exchanging shift/scheduled work with one another 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 that the specific, non-generic and unconventional combination of elements and operations recited in Applicant's amended claims, providing tangible improvements to technology, would integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and would amount to significantly more than any alleged exception (as per Step 2A - Prong 2 and Step 2B of the revised Alice/Mayo test, respectively. MPEP 2106.04(d)(l) and MPEP 2106.05(a)). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims disclose that the reduction of network traffic stems for fewer trade requests as the requests incorporate two or more non-consecutive days. Lowering the amount of data to be ingested by a computer or a computing network will necessarily lower the network traffic, much like having less cars on a highway will lower traffic. In the highway analogy, no additional lanes were added, instead the lesser number of vehicles on the road is solely responsible for less traffic, in a world of virtual connections, the same is true where a less congested network will have less traffic consuming less resources and power. Considered as an ordered combination, the generic computer components of applicant’s claimed invention add nothing that is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. For example, 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 present claims are clearly technological and improve the functioning of a computer while being more technological and less abstract, as well as more specific (and less generic), than the patent eligible claims in 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.
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 an agent terminal, wherein the multi-day trade request relates to two or more non-consecutive day, wherein the set of shift parameters are sent 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, thereby reducing network traffic and use of computer resources and power; send, over the network, the multi-day trade request to a sub-set of the identified target agents selected by the source agent; 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 “using a computer processor: 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 an agent terminal, wherein the set of shift trade request preferences are sent 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, 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
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 Wu can be reached on (571)272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 11/24/2025