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 .
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed on July 21, 2025, has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 5-6, 16, 19, 21, 23-24, 26-27, 30, 34, 36, and the cancellation of claims 2, 4, 7, 11, 15, 20, 22, 25, 29, 33. No amendments to the specification were received.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C § 112(b): Applicant’s amendments to the claims and clarification that "module" is used in the subject application to refer to software components comprising program logic or instructions stored in memory and executed by one or
more processors, sufficiently specifies software structures, and thus rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) for these claims is withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues that the claims go far beyond the organization of tasks or human judgement and describe the implementation of computer-based modules of a workflow management system to dynamically assign tasks based on multiple tuned data inputs. Examiner agrees. The invention appears to leverage what computer technology does best: rapid assimilation of data and performing calculations for distributing tasks among workers meeting shifting priorities over time. The actions performed by the software appear to speed management insight and response to changes that occur regularly in an organization. The Examiner continues to interpret these activities as abstract ideas that a (human) manager would perform on a daily basis. The Examiner acknowledges that the speed offered by a computer driven management process could provide advantages useful in organizational operations, but in the absence of an environment requiring immediate response, sees the invention as the application of software enhancements as additional tools for the manager’s toolbox. In this respect, the invention applies enhanced management information processing techniques to a computer. This becomes an example of “apply it” or hosting software on a conventional processor. There is no indication of an improvement to the functioning of a processor (computer) or additional inventive steps taken by the automation beyond the conventional sphere of managing personnel for an organization.
Whereas Example 47 of the July 2024 USPTO, Subject Matter Eligibility Examples illustrate a case of software detecting malicious software intrusion on a network and providing a response where the automation not only detects and identifies the malicious software, it takes the additional actions of isolating the software and blocking the source of the intrusion without the intervention of a human operator. In a sense, it becomes a safety system, detecting a threat and then neutralizing that threat. The extra step of acting upon the knowledge gained, illustrates how the resources of a computer system are applied to perform an action without the need of a human system operator. This is a classic example of a practical application.
In the case of the current application, the Examiner notes the initial steps of detecting issues and identifying solutions are performed, but does not yet see how these are applied in the absence of a human operator, hence the practical application appears to be lacking. For this reason, the request to withdraw the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is denied.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant argues that several limitations in the amended claims are not taught by prior art, in one case the combination of task type priority value and adjustable urgency weighting value. Examiner notes that prior art Hartley describes both priority and urgency, and FIG. 4 of Hartley shows combining priority in step 406 with job scoring for urgency in 408, hence the Examiner disagrees that the prior art does not provide motivation or suggestion to combine priority and urgency.
Applicant argues that neither prior art, Ingman or Hartley suggests a multi-parameter profile structure. Examiner disagrees, noting Ingman teaches worker parameters including skills, schedule, work area, qualifications, work shift and real time status to include absence due to vacation or illness, and worker location.
Applicant argues that neither prior art suggests continuous monitoring worker and task in real time. Examiner notes Ingman teaching dynamically updating the schedule in real time to take into account actual performance.
Examiner does not find the above prior art arguments compelling, and distinguishing features argued are not evident, thus the request for reconsideration of objections or withdrawal of rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is denied.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-19, 21, 23-24, 26-28, 30-32 and 34-37, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-19, 21, 23-24, 26-28, 30-32 and 34-37, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-19, 21, 23-24, 26-28, 30-32 and 34-37, are directed to a process (method), and a machine (system), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-19, 21, 23-24, 26-28, 30-32 and 34-37, are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of assigning tasks to workers in an organization based on work priorities, worker considerations, and enabling management adjustment.
Claim 1 discloses A method for assigning a task to a worker in an organization, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, managing personal behavior - following rules or instructions), the method comprising:
identifying, a plurality of task types within which each task of a plurality of tasks is classifiable; (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, managing personal behavior - following rules or instructions);
prioritizing, each task type of the plurality of task types relative to one another, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
including associating a task type priority value and an adjustable urgency weighting with each task type; (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
sorting, the plurality of tasks into a task queue according to a priority determined based on a combination of the task type priority value and the adjustable urgency weighting associated with each task type; (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
identifying, a plurality of worker profiles, each worker profile having:
a subset of task types assignable to a worker associated with the worker profile, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, managing personal behavior - following rules or instructions),
an adjustable assignment weighting for each task type of the subset of task types, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, managing personal behavior - following rules or instructions),
a worker skill weighting for each task type of the subset of task types, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
a real-time availability status of the worker, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and
a geographic location of the worker; (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and,
assigning, to one worker one task from the task queue which corresponds with at least one task type of the subset of task types of the worker profile associated with the one worker, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, managing personal behavior - following rules or instructions), the one task being prioritized for assignment relative to other tasks in the task queue according to the priority determined based on the combination of the task type priority value and the adjustable urgency weighting, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and wherein the task type of the one task is further weighted according to the adjustable assignment weighting and the worker skill weighting associated with the at least one task type of the subset of task types; (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
wherein the assignment is based at least in part on changes in one or more of: the availability status of the worker, the worker skill weighting, the geographic location of the worker, the task type priority value and the adjustable urgency weighting, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Additional limitations employ the method for removing the one task from the task queue after assignment to the one worker, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 3), wherein the one task in the task queue is assignable only to workers available to receive the one task, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 5), wherein the one worker becomes unavailable to receive further tasks after receiving the one task, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 6), the method comprises disabling at least one task type in the worker profile whereby tasks of the disabled are unassignable to the one worker, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, managing personal behavior - following rules or instructions - claim 8), wherein assigning the one task includes: self-assignment of the one task by the worker, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 9), wherein assigning the one task to the one worker is automatic upon completion of a previously assigned task, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 10), wherein prioritizing each task type is further based on metadata, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 12), wherein the metadata includes a status of a prerequisite task, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 13), wherein the metadata further includes a number of tasks in the task queue, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 14), prioritizing for assignment of the one task one worker with a worker skill weighting associated therewith that is higher than the other worker profiles among workers, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, managing personal behavior - following rules or instructions - claim 16), directing the one task to a worker other than the one worker for review of the one task after completion of the one task for providing feedback on the performance thereof, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, managing personal behavior - following rules or instructions – claim 17), directing the one task to the one worker after feedback is provided for acknowledgement of the feedback, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- following rules or instructions – claim 18), and enabling a manager to make manual adjustments to the task prioritization, worker assignment, task queue, and worker profile, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, managing personal behavior - following rules or instructions – claim 35).
Each of these claimed limitations employ mental processes involving judgement, observation, evaluation, and opinion as well as managing personal behavior - following rules or instructions.
Claims 19, 21, 23-24, 26-28, 30, 32, 34-37 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-18.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-19, 21, 23-24, 26-28, 30-32 and 34-37 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-19, 21, 23-24, 26-28, 30-32 and 34-37 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as a computer, a workflow management system, at least one processor and memory, , assignments are performed dynamically and automatically based on the system-detected changes in one or more of: the real-time availability status of the worker these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-19, 21, 23-24, 26-28, 30-32 and 34-37 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-19, 21, 23-24, 26-28, 30-32 and 34-37 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 analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-19, 21, 23-24, 26-28, 30-32 and 34-37 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-14, 21, 23-24, 26-28, 30-32, and 35, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Ingman, (US 20030204431 A1), hereafter Ingman, “Immediate Next Task Dispatch System and Method,” in view of Hartley, (AU 2016202398 A1), hereafter Hartley, “System and Process for Scheduling And/or Monitoring of Vehicle Repairs.”
Regarding Claim 1, A computer implemented method for assigning a task to a
worker in an organization executed by a workflow management system, Ingman teaches, (an automated dispatch system assigns a plurality of tasks to a plurality of workers working for a service provider, [0004]), comprising at least one processor and memory storing instructions, (an automated dispatch computer 200 includes a processing unit 202 coupled to a computer memory, [0028]), the method comprising:
identifying, by the workflow management system, a plurality of task types
within which each task of a plurality of tasks is classifiable; (Each task is associated with a set of task parameters, such as task location, technical requirements, duration, etc., [0004]), the type field 244 identifies the task type of task 40, e.g., residential repair, residential installation, commercial repair, etc., [0035]).
prioritizing, by the workflow management system, each task type of the
plurality of task types relative to one another, including associating a task type priority value, Ingman does not teach, Hartley teaches (The system data 200 can represent manually selected job priority values for jobs, and manually selected task priority values for tasks, and these are used by the scheduling engine to select one job or task before another, [0053]), and an adjustable urgency weighting with each task type; (Following generation of the initial temporary schedule in step 406, the scheduling engine generates a workload score (which can be referred to as a priority or urgency score) for each job in the temporary schedule, [0059]),
sorting, by the workflow management system, the plurality of tasks into a task
queue according a priority determined based on a combination of the task type priority value and the adjustable urgency weighting associated with each task type; (generate a schedule of the repair tasks by iteratively assigning a worker and a bay to each repair task, based on the task type, in order of the priority scores; [0005], (which can be referred to as a priority or urgency score) for each job in the temporary schedule, [0059]),
identifying, by the workflow management system, a plurality of worker profiles, each worker profile having:
a subset of task types assignable to a worker associated with the worker
profile, (the system data 200 include employee data 212 and employee-task-type (ETT) link data 214.The employee data 212 represent the workers, each with a quasi-unique employee ID or worker ID, and a free-text name. The ETT link data 214 represent predetermined links between known workers and expected to task types, with each ETT link having a quasi-unique ETT link ID, and one of the employee IDs (from the employee data 212) and one of the task type IDs (from the task type data210), thus allowing the scheduling system 104 to associate an appropriate employee ID to each task type, and thus to each job task in the job task data 208, Hartley, [0047]),
an adjustable assignment weighting for each task type of the subset of task
types, (each task is associated with a set of task parameters, such as task location, technical requirements, duration, etc. Likewise, each worker is associated with a set of worker parameters, such as known skills, work schedule, work area, etc. the automated dispatch system receives the task parameters and worker parameters and uses matching and minimization algorithms to create a task list for each worker, Ingman, [0004]),
a worker skill weighting for each task type of the subset of task types, Ingman
teaches, (The system 10 determines whether a worker 60 is qualified to respond to the task 40 by comparing the task parameters 142 to the worker parameters 162 for each identified worker. In step 806, the immediate next task is assigned on one of the qualified workers 60. The assignment may be made automatically by the system 10, or may be manually specified by the service provider, [0052]).
a real-time availability status of the worker, Ingman teaches, (the worker record
160 includes a worker ID field 262, a skills field 264, a schedule field 266, and a location field 268. [ ] The schedule field 266 contains schedule information for the associated worker 60, e.g., the work shift of the worker 60, lunchtime, whether the worker 60 is absent due to vacation or illness, etc., [0036] and
and provide more efficient scheduling of tasks taking into account worker locations, worker and bay capabilities, due completion times and current completion of pre-scheduled tasks. The system 100 dynamically updates the schedule in real time to take into account actual performance, and to allow prioritisation of an overdue job., [0132] and
a geographic location of the worker; (the worker record 160 includes a worker
ID field 262, a skills field 264, a schedule field 266, and a location field 268, [0036], and the location field 268 stores the current location of the worker 60, [0036]), and,
assigning, by the workflow management system, to one worker one task from the task
queue which corresponds with at least one task type of the subset of task types of the worker profile associated with the one worker, Hartley teaches, (the system including a scheduling engine configured to: (a) receive data representing repair tasks for a plurality of motor-vehicle-repair jobs, including a labour time and a task type for each task; (b) receive data representing desired completion times for the jobs; (c) determine estimated completion times for the jobs by adding the labour times for the repair tasks for each job; (d) determine priority scores for jobs by comparing the estimated completion times and the desired completion times; (e) generate a schedule of the repair tasks by iteratively assigning a worker and a bay to each repair task, based on the task type, in order of the priority scores; and (f) send data representing the schedule to a display system for the workers, [0005]), the one task being prioritized for assignment relative to other tasks in the task queue according to the priority determined based on the combination of the task type priority value, (the system data 200 can represent manually selected job priority values for jobs, and manually selected task priority values for tasks, and these are used by the scheduling engine to select one job or task before another, Hartley, [0053]), and the adjustable urgency weighting, and wherein the task type of the one task is further weighted according to the adjustable assignment weighting, (following generation of the initial temporary schedule in step 406, the scheduling engine generates a workload score (which can be referred to as a priority or urgency score) for each job in the temporary schedule, and selects the most urgent job (step 408), [0059], the priority of each job task may be set or selected during the scheduler process 400, [0045]), and the worker skill weighting associated with the at least one task type of the subset of task types, Ingman teaches, (The system 10 determines whether a worker 60 is qualified to respond to the task 40 by comparing the task parameters 142 to the worker parameters 162 for each identified worker. In step 806, the immediate next task is assigned on one of the qualified workers 60. The assignment may be made automatically by the system 10, or may be manually specified by the service provider, [0052]),
wherein the assignment is performed dynamically and automatically by the workflow
management system based at least in part on system-detected changes in one or more of: the real-time availability status of the worker, the worker skill weighting, the geographic location of the worker, the task type priority value and the adjustable urgency weighting. Ingman teaches, (the task lists 360 are modified by workers 60 completing their assigned tasks 40, by adding new tasks 40 to the existing tasks, and by the workers 60 being removed from availability due to the completion of a work shift, illness, etc. To account for these dynamics, the management module 120 periodically generates and loads new task lists 60 during the workday. These dynamic loads are conducted after a specified period of time has elapsed, or after the number of new tasks 40 input into the automated dispatch computer 200 exceeds a threshold value. As a result of these dynamic loads, the task lists 360 may change periodically throughout the day, [0042]).
Ingman and Hartley are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention
because they are both in the field of task prioritization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the task assignment methods of Ingman with the task priority techniques of Hartley so that the most urgent job can be selected, Hartley, [0059].
Claim 19 is rejected for reasons corresponding to those provided for Claim 1. In this claim, the addition of a system for assigning tasks including a module for identifying, a module for prioritizing, a queue module for sorting, a worker profile module, and an assignment module, does not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 or the referenced prior art (Ingman teaches an automated dispatch computer 200 includes a processing unit 202 coupled to a computer memory, [0028]).
Regarding claim 35, the system of claim 19 further comprising:
a manager module in data communication with and configured for enabling a
manager to make manual adjustments in at least one of the task type prioritization module,
the worker assignment module, the task queue module and the worker profile module. Ingman teaches, (FIG. 2 provides an exemplary operating environment for the task management system 10. An automated dispatch computer 200 includes a processing unit 202 coupled to a computer memory 204 storing the management module 120, [0028], the processing unit 202 preferably executes the management module 120 and accesses the database 100, the processing unit 202 is coupled to an input/output device 208, through which a task input device 210 inputs new tasks 40 into the database 100. An analyst device 212, coupled to the processing unit 202 through the input/output device 208, is used to view and modify task lists. The task input device 210 and analyst device 212 may be realized through one common device, or may be realized through separate devices. The input/output device 208 is also connected to a dispatch transceiver 214 to transmit and receive information. The dispatch transceiver 214 transmits data related to a task 40 dispatched by the management module 120, [0030].
Regarding claim 3, The computer implemented method of claim 1 further comprising
removing the one task from the task queue after assignment to the one worker, Ingman teaches, (The task 40a is dispatched to the worker 60a at the beginning of the shift. Accordingly, task40b, which corresponds to the record 140b in the task list 360a, is now first in the dispatch order, as it is the next task 40 to be dispatched, [0039]).
Claim 21 is rejected for reasons corresponding to those provided for Claim 3. In this claim, the addition of a system for assigning tasks including a module for identifying, a module for prioritizing, a queue module for sorting, a worker profile module, an assignment module, and a module for removing the one task from the queue, does not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 or the referenced prior art (Ingman teaches an automated dispatch computer 200 includes a processing unit 202 coupled to a computer memory, [0028]).
Regarding claim 5, the computer implemented method of claim 1 wherein the one task in the task queue is assignable only to workers available to receive the one task, Ingman teaches, (the system identifies workers that are not assigned immediate next tasks, and who are qualified to respond to the task 40. The system 10 determines whether a worker 60 is qualified to respond to the task 40 by comparing the task parameters 142 to the worker parameters 162 for each identified worker, [0052], and the schedule field 266 contains schedule information for the associated worker 60, e.g., the work shift of the worker 60, lunchtime, whether the worker 60 is absent due to vacation or illness, etc., [0036]).
Claim 23 is rejected for reasons corresponding to those provided for Claim 5. In this claim, the addition of a system for assigning tasks including a module for identifying, a module for prioritizing, a queue module for sorting, a worker profile module, an assignment module, does not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 or the referenced prior art (Ingman teaches an automated dispatch computer 200 includes a processing unit 202 coupled to a computer memory, [0028]).
Regarding claim 6, The computer implemented method of claim 1 wherein the one worker becomes unavailable to receive further tasks after receiving the one task, Ingman teaches, (the worker parameters include a schedule parameter indicating a worker's schedule, and wherein the management module is operable to designate only one immediate next task to the worker during the worker's schedule, [claim 10]).
Claim 24 is rejected for reasons corresponding to those provided for Claim 6. In this claim, the addition of a system for assigning tasks including a module for identifying, a module for prioritizing, a queue module for sorting, a worker profile module, an assignment module, does not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 or the referenced prior art (Ingman teaches an automated dispatch computer 200 includes a processing unit 202 coupled to a computer memory, [0028]).
Regarding claim 8, the computer implemented method of claim 1 wherein prior to
assigning, the method further comprises:
disabling at least one task type of the subset of task types of the worker profile
associated with the worker whereby tasks of the disabled at least one task type are
unassignable to the one worker as the one task, Ingman teaches, (the task lists 360 are modified by workers 60 completing their assigned tasks 40, by adding new tasks 40 to the existing tasks, and by the workers 60 being removed from availability due to the completion of a work shift, illness, etc., [0042], and an unlocked task 40may be removed from a worker's 60 task list during the dynamic load, while a locked task 40 may not be removed from a worker's 60 task list 360 during a dynamic load, [0077]).
Claim 26 is rejected for reasons corresponding to those provided for Claim 8. In this claim, the addition of a system for assigning tasks including a module for identifying, a module for prioritizing, a queue module for sorting, a worker profile module, an assignment module, does not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 or the referenced prior art (Ingman teaches an automated dispatch computer 200 includes a processing unit 202 coupled to a computer memory, [0028]).
Regarding claim 9, The computer implemented method of claim 1 wherein assigning the one task includes: self-assignment of the one task by the worker, Ingman does not teach, Hartley teaches, (During the manual input state (in which the status data represent a job status of “manual input”), the monitoring engine receives input to determine the next function, which may be a return to the idle state, in step 502, or a manual start task state (step 524), or a manual entry into a hold state (in which the status data represent a job status of “hold”), to put the job on hold (step 526), a manual message generation state, to send a message within the system 100(step 528), or an elective task selection state in which the preferred jobs and tasks in the schedule preferences data 220 are edited or added, e.g., to allow a worker do something entirely independent of the jobs and the tasks, such as attend a training session, etc., [0088]).
Ingman and Hartley are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of task prioritization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the task assignment methods of Ingman with the manual input options of Hartley to allow a worker do something entirely independent of the jobs and the tasks, such as attend a training session, etc., Hartley, [0088].
Claim 27 is rejected for reasons corresponding to those provided for Claim 9. In this claim, the addition of a system for assigning tasks including a module for identifying, a module for prioritizing, a queue module for sorting, a worker profile module, and an assignment module, does not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 or the referenced prior art (Ingman teaches an automated dispatch computer 200 includes a processing unit 202 coupled to a computer memory, [0028]).
Regarding claim 10, the computer implemented method of claim 1 wherein assigning the one task to the one worker is automatic upon completion of a previously assigned task, Ingman teaches, (upon completing the dispatched task 40a, the worker 60a notifies the management module 120 that the dispatched task 40a has been completed, and the management module 120 dispatches task 40b, the next task 40 in the dispatch order, [0039]).
Claim 28 is rejected for reasons corresponding to those provided for Claim 10. In this claim, the addition of a system for assigning tasks including a module for identifying, a module for prioritizing, a queue module for sorting, a worker profile module, and an assignment module, does not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 or the referenced prior art (Ingman teaches an automated dispatch computer 200 includes a processing unit 202 coupled to a computer memory, [0028]).
Regarding claim 12, The computer implemented method of claim 1 wherein prioritizing each task type of the plurality of task types relative to one another is further based on metadata. Ingman does not teach, Hartley teaches, (the system data 200 can represent manually selected job priority values for jobs, and manually selected task priority values for tasks, and these are used by the scheduling engine to select one job or task before another. This can be used if the determined workload scores are otherwise equal, or to select a preferred group of jobs or tasks for allocating into the schedule ahead of other jobs and tasks, [0053], and the system data 200 include job task data 208 stored in the job task table and generated by the scheduling system 104 from the raw quote data 202 and the quote task data 204. The job task data 208 represent a plurality of job tasks, each with a quasi-unique job task ID, and each with a job ID (that identifies one of the jobs in the job data 206), each with a task type ID (a code), a task cost(generated from the task cost in the quote task data 204), each with labour hours, a priority, a job task state, and a print order, [0045]).
Ingman and Hartley are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of task prioritization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the task assignment methods of Ingman with the metadata usage of Hartley to determine which tasks in a job need to be scheduled first by the scheduling engine, Hartley, [0045].
Claim 30 is rejected for reasons corresponding to those provided for Claim 12. In this claim, the addition of a system for assigning tasks including a module for identifying, a module for prioritizing, a queue module for sorting, a worker profile module, and an assignment module, does not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 or the referenced prior art (Ingman teaches an automated dispatch computer 200 includes a processing unit 202 coupled to a computer memory, [0028]).
Regarding claim 13, the computer implemented method of claim 12 wherein the metadata includes a status of a prerequisite task, Ingman does not teach, Hartley teaches, (The system data 200 include [ ] a print order, [0045]. This next task is determined from the tasks in the job task data208, for the job ID that are incomplete based on the print order, which indicates the order of tasks foreach job ID, [0060], once the most urgent job is determined in step 408, the scheduling engine selects the next incomplete task for that job (step 410), [0060]).
Ingman and Hartley are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of task prioritization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the task assignment methods of Ingman with the prerequisite print order metadata usage of Hartley to determine which tasks in a job need to be scheduled first by the scheduling engine, Hartley, [0045].
Claim 31 is rejected for reasons corresponding to those provided for Claim 13. In this claim, the addition of a system for assigning tasks including a module for identifying, a module for prioritizing, a queue module for sorting, a worker profile module, and an assignment module, does not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 or the referenced prior art (Ingman teaches an automated dispatch computer 200 includes a processing unit 202 coupled to a computer memory, [0028]).
Regarding claim 14, The computer implemented method of claim 12 wherein the metadata further includes a number of tasks in the task queue. Ingman does not teach, Hartley teaches, (As shown in Figure 11, the full shop display 1100 displays job details 602, 606, 608 as in the vehicle-based user interface for each bay, including for jobs indicted in the parking bays 1102, for waiting vehicles, and jobs indicted in the workshop bays in the workshop 1104 where the monitoring engine has assigned the job tasks. The full shop display 1100 includes a total indicator 1110 showing the total number of jobs that are assigned in the workshop, and a status or state indicator, [0127], and shown in FIG. 11, (top right), [p. 44 of 48]).
Ingman and Hartley are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of task prioritization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the task assignment methods of Ingman with the metadata applications of Hartley to enable an overview indicator 1108 of the active jobs. Hartley, [0127].
Claim 32 is rejected for reasons corresponding to those provided for Claim 14. In this claim, the addition of a system for assigning tasks including a module for identifying, a module for prioritizing, a queue module for sorting, a worker profile module, and an assignment module, does not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 or the referenced prior art (Ingman teaches an automated dispatch computer 200 includes a processing unit 202 coupled to a computer memory, [0028]).
Claims 16 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Ingman, (US 20030204431 A1), hereafter Ingman, “Immediate Next Task Dispatch System and Method,” in view of Hartley, (AU 2016202398 A1), hereafter Hartley, “System and Process for Scheduling And/or Monitoring of Vehicle Repairs,” in view of Ganesan, (US 8548838 B1), hereafter Ganesan, “Method, Software, and/or Process for Optimizing the Distribution of Labor in a Manufacturing Environment.”
Regarding claim 16, The computer implemented method of claim 1 wherein assigning to one worker one task from the task queue further comprises:
prioritizing for assignment of the one task one worker among a plurality of workers wherein the one worker has a corresponding worker profile wherein the subset of task types includes a task type corresponding with the task type of the one task and a worker skill weighting associated therewith that is higher than the worker skill weighting associated with the same task type in any of the subset of task types of other worker profiles among the plurality of workers, Ingman does not teach, Ganesan teaches, (the present invention may be configured to process skills needed at the unattended stations and match the skills with the available replacement operators to determine instantaneously the most qualified operators for those unattended stations, [7:26-29]).
Ingman and Ganesan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of task prioritization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the task assignment methods of Ingman with the process of identifying the most qualified workers used by Ganesan to improve the efficiency of supervisors and reduce product defects and rework, Ganesan, [7:32-36].
Claim 34 is rejected for reasons corresponding to those provided for Claim 16. In this claim, the addition of a system for assigning tasks including a module for identifying, a module for prioritizing, a queue module for sorting, a worker profile module, and an assignment module, does not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 or the referenced prior art (Ingman teaches an automated dispatch computer 200 includes a processing unit 202 coupled to a computer memory, [0028]).
9. Claim 17, 18, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Ingman, (US 20030204431 A1), hereafter Ingman, “Immediate Next Task Dispatch System and Method,” in view of Hartley, (AU 2016202398 A1), hereafter Hartley, “System and Process for Scheduling And/or Monitoring of Vehicle Repairs,” in view of Haas (US 20170061356 A1), hereafter Haas, “Hierarchical Review Structure for Crowd Worker Tasks.”
Regarding claim 17, The computer implemented method of claim 1 further comprising
directing the one task to a worker other than the one worker for review of the one task after completion of the one task for providing feedback on the performance thereof, Ingman does not teach, Haas teaches, (a hierarchical review structure that allows expert workers to catch errors and provide feedback to entry-level workers on complex tasks, Haas [0032]).
Ingman and Haas are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of task prioritization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the task assignment methods of Ingman with a hierarchical review structure of Haas to improve their output quality given a fixed budget and fixed throughput requirement, [0032]).
Claim 36 is rejected for reasons corresponding to those provided for Claim 17. In this claim, the addition of a system for assigning tasks including a module for identifying, a module for prioritizing, a queue module for sorting, a worker profile module, an assignment module, and a feedback module, does not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 or the referenced prior art (Ingman teaches an automated dispatch computer 200 includes a processing unit 202 coupled to a computer memory, [0028]).
Regarding claim 18, The computer implemented method of claim 17 further comprising directing the one task to the one worker after feedback is provided for acknowledgement of the feedback. Ingman does not teach, Haas teaches, (reviewers may examine the DES's work and provide detailed feedback in the form of comments and edits. They can reject the task and send it back to the DES, who must make corrections and resubmit, [0071]).
Ingman and Haas are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of task prioritization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the task assignment methods of Ingman with the feedback structure of Haas because this workflow allows more experienced workers to pass on their knowledge and experience. improve their output quality given a fixed budget and fixed throughput requirement, [0071]).
Claim 37 is rejected for reasons corresponding to those provided for Claim 18. In this claim, the addition of a system for assigning tasks including a module for identifying, a module for prioritizing, a queue module for sorting, a worker profile module, an assignment module, and a feedback module, does not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 or the referenced prior art (Ingman teaches an automated dispatch computer 200 includes a processing unit 202 coupled to a computer memory, [0028]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624