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 Claims
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9 March 2026 has been entered.
This action is in reply to the entered RCE.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 have been canceled. Claims 2, 9 and 16 were previously canceled.
Claims 24-26 are added as new.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17 and 19-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and remarks are sufficient to overcome the 112 rejections previously raised, those rejections are respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome the 101 rejections previously raised. These rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the 103 rejections previously raised. None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination teaches the claimed invention specifically regarding monitoring the percent improvement of each solution generated by continuously executing an iterative algorithm based on an objective function and comparing the percent improvement to a threshold to determine whether to generate a prioritized schedule and staffing recommendations or to stop generating schedules/recommendations and to transmit the prioritized schedule and recommendations when the percent improvement falls below the threshold percent improvement. The 103 rejections are respectfully withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 9 March 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101, applicant argues that the claims to not recite an abstract idea Examiner respectfully disagrees. A series of instructions for determining an objective function, executing an algorithm, monitoring a percent improvement of a solution, comparing an percent improvement to a threshold, generating a scheduling and staffing recommendation illustrate a series of observations and evaluations that could be done the same way mentally or manually with pencil and paper. Nothing in the claimed invention precludes the steps from being performed manually. The claims can also be classified into the grouping of organizing human activity since the claims as a whole illustrate a series of instructions for managing a business relation or personal behavior since it demonstrates analysis for scheduling functionality and staffing. The claims do not establish any limitations that meaningfully limit the implementation of the recited steps.
Applicant argues that the human mind is not equipped to perform the claimed invention. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely describing that something occurs continuously is not sufficient to transform the claims into a patent eligible invention. A human being can watch something and continuously monitor it as was done in traditional time studies. Continuously executing an iterative algorithm merely requires repeated iterations of an algorithm. The use of a computer to perform the execution does not meaningfully limit the otherwise abstract claim. In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e. through the utilization of a computer to iterate an algorithm.
Applicant argues that like McRo, Diamond v. Diehr and Finjan the claims improve an existing technological process. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention does not realize a technical solution to a technical problem or any other improvement to technology. The specification does not detail a technical problem that is solved based on the system’s ability to generate and transmit prioritized schedules and staffing recommendations. The claimed invention merely uses a computer to gather and analyze data to output an optimized schedule and staffing recommendation. Any purported improvement to the scheduling and staffing through a specific analytic process where a percent improvement determined by executing an algorithm and monitored then compared to a threshold to decide when to keep iterating or when to stop is wholly within the identified abstraction and is not a technical improvement to the function of the computer itself or any other technology.
The 101 rejection is respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 16 March 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final office action but prior to the close of prosecution. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17 and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite limitations for determining an objective function, utilizing an iteratively executing an algorithm to determine a plurality of solutions, continuously monitoring a percent improvement of each solution, comparison the monitor percent improvement to a threshold and in response to a stop condition not being met/the improvement percent not fallowing below a threshold generating a prioritized schedule and staffing recommendation. These limitations, as drafted, illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. These determinations, iterative algorithm execution, continuous monitoring, i.e. observation, threshold evaluation and generation of a schedule and recommendations could be done the same way mentally or manually with a pen and paper. But for the application, controller, memory and processor language, the claims encompass a user simply making a series of observations and evaluations, e.g. determining, executing an algorithm to get a solution, comparing a percentage to a threshold, generating a schedule and generating a staffing recommendation in their mind. As a whole the claimed concept can also be considered to recite a certain method of organizing human activity since the series of instructions for how to determine and evaluate solutions to generate a schedule and staffing recommendations which illustrates instructions that manage personal behavior, e.g. a prioritized schedule of work orders with staffing recommendations and/or business relations, e.g. a prioritized schedule of work orders and staffing recommendations for shifts in a manufacturing environment. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component or system environment does not take the claim limitations out of the abstract grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements including a system comprising a memory and one or more processors executing applications for receiving and transmitting data, as well as a processor of the system that is configured to execute the determining, generating and continuous implementation of other steps. The receiving and transmitting are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering and transmission, which are forms of insignificant extra solution activity. The processor and controller that perform the determining and generating steps and the ability to apply other steps continuously are also recited at a high level of generality and merely automate those steps. Each of the additional components is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception in a generic computer environment with generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or linking the steps to a generic computer environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the receiving and transmitting steps that were considered extra solution activity in step 2A above, these have been re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the system components are anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs. court decisions in MPEP 2106.05 indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Dependent claims 3, 5-7, 10, 12-14, 17 and 19-26 include all of the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims merely narrow the recited abstract idea by describing additional observation and evaluation steps including describing objective variables of the objective function, algorithms for making determinations, the stop condition, modifying the prioritized schedule, and the type of objective function. The additional elements recited fail to transform the claims into a patent eligible invention but instead describe an additional interface for displaying and receiving input, the type of database and output display including a table of data that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more based on the same reasons and rationale set forth for the receiving and transmitting functions in the independent claims.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17 and 19-26 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zak et al. teaches a human resource management AI Optimization system and method where a scheduling module automatically outputs suggestions using real time data to make improvements to resource distribution using predictive capabilities. The amount of improvement is determined as a percentage representing an increased efficiency for idle time but does not explicitly demonstrate an iterative execution of an algorithm to output solutions which are continuously monitored for the percentage improvement, the percentage being compared to a threshold to determine whether to continue iterations generating the prioritized schedule and staffing suggestions or to transmit the schedule and suggestions when the improvement percentage falls below the threshold.
Burns, Sr. et al. teaches transformative corporate formation and automated technology assessment and describes tracking innovations, potential improvements, efficiencies and other metrics continuously to evaluate new business ventures and investments. Burns does not explicitly demonstrate an iterative execution of an algorithm to output solutions for scheduling and staffing which are continuously monitored for a percentage improvement, the percentage being compared to a threshold to determine whether to continue iterations generating the prioritized schedule and staffing suggestions or to transmit the schedule and suggestions when the improvement percentage falls below the threshold.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights