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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final rejection. Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-23 are pending.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 07/08/2026, amending claim 1, 8, and 15.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103- No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below. Also, See applicant remarks pages 16-19 07/08/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments date 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (Pages 9-11 of the remarks):
With the foregoing in mind, the Applicant respectfully submits that the recitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 cannot reasonably be construed as certain methods of organizing human activity, and in particular, commercial and legal interactions. Indeed, because the certain methods of organizing human activity are not to be extended beyond the enumerated groupings, the Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 cannot reasonably be interpreted as reciting certain methods of organizing human activity.
As such, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are not directed to an abstract idea, and thus, are patent eligible.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
With regard to an abstract idea, Independent Claims the claim, when “taken as a whole,” are directed to the abstract idea and substantially recite the limitations:
A system, comprising:
a controller comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and
one or more processors, wherein the controller is configured to execute a staffing application configured to:
receive one or more staffing inputs from at least one database, wherein the one or more staffing inputs comprise one or more projected absences, certification data, or a combination thereof, associated with a planned manufacturing operation; receive a prioritized schedule of a plurality of work orders received from a scheduling application, a staffing recommendation received from the scheduling application, or a combination thereof, associated with the planned manufacturing operation;
generate a staffing plan based on the one or more staffing inputs and an iterative algorithm, wherein the staffing plan comprises a table of a plurality of staffing assignments, wherein each staffing assignment of the plurality of staffing assignments comprises a staff member identifier, a shift identifier indicative of an assigned shift, a product line identifier indicative of a product line to which a
PNG
media_image1.png
5
3
media_image1.png
Greyscale
staff member is assigned, or a combination thereof, wherein the iterative algorithm comprises a Hungarian algorithm that uses a cost matric that assigns lower cost to staffing assignments that pair operators having different certifications on a same product line to facilitate cross-training between a plurality of staff members;
control a user interface to display the staffing plan; receive real-time data indicative of day-of staffing adjustments, wherein the real-time data comprises a monitored attendance of one or more staff members, wherein the controller is configured to receive the monitored attendance from an attendance system;
receive additional real-time data of the planned manufacturing operation from one or more sensors of an industrial automation system;
process the additional real-time data to determine real-time performance data;
generate an updated the staffing plan based on the real-time data and the iterative algorithm; adjust an operation of a motor of a production line of the industrial automation system based on the updated staffing plan and the real-time performance data; and control the user interface to display real-time performance data and the updated staffing plan to the production environment.
The Applicant's Specification titled " SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANUFACTURING APPLICATIONS" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to determine a staff plan based on staffing inputs and display the schedule to a user interface " (Spec. figure 13).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are recites the abstract idea of determine a staff plan based on staffing inputs and display the schedule to a user interface. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (ii) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of determine a staff plan based on staffing inputs and display the schedule to a user interface. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to Certain methods of organizing human activity –commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind by determining an updated schedule based on monitoring staff attendance. These determinations evaluation could be done the same way mentally or manually with a pen and paper. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to Mental Processes –concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion);” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant argues (Pages 11-15 of the remarks):
Therefore, the Applicant submits that claims directed to allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer, or claims directed to features that enable a computer to do something it could not before, are not directed to an abstract idea, but are instead directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 generally recite generating a staffing plan based on the one or more staffing inputs and an iterative algorithm
…
The systems and methods of claims 1, 8, and 15 improve functionality of computer related technology by enabling a production system (e.g., operation technology (OT) environment) to operate in an unconventional manner.
…
Because the claims are directed to enabling a production system to "do something it could not do before," which constitutes "an improvement in computer technology," the Applicant respectfully asserts that the pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to significantly more than an abstract idea With respect to the second step of the two-part analysis, even if the current claims were directed to an abstract idea, which the Applicant refutes, the claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recite the additional limitation a system, a controller, a memory, processors, database, scheduling application, an iterative algorithm, Hungarian algorithm, a user interface, attendance system, an automation system, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). All of these additional elements are not significantly more because these, again, are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer; October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “iterative algorithm” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea. (“[M]erely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea”); 2019 Revised Guidance at 55. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This invention makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer. “[M]erely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea”); 2019 Revised Guidance at 55. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This invention makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer. This is not a technical solution to a technical problem.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
The Alice framework, step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Independent claims do not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. The claims include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include a system, a controller, a memory, processors, database, scheduling application, an iterative algorithm, Hungarian algorithm, a user interface, attendance system, an automation system, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Examiner asserts that a system, a controller, a memory, processors, database, scheduling application, an iterative algorithm, Hungarian algorithm, an automation system, a user interface, attendance system, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions. (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Further, with regard to mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
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, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1, 4-7, and 21-33 are directed to “system” (machine), claims 8, and 11-14 are directed to a method (process) and claims 15, and 18-20 are directed to a non-transitory (machine). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-23 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A system, comprising:
a controller comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and
one or more processors, wherein the controller is configured to execute a staffing application configured to:
receive one or more staffing inputs from at least one database, wherein the one or more staffing inputs comprise one or more projected absences, certification data, or a combination thereof, associated with a planned manufacturing operation; receive a prioritized schedule of a plurality of work orders received from a scheduling application, a staffing recommendation received from the scheduling application, or a combination thereof, associated with the planned manufacturing operation;
generate a staffing plan based on the one or more staffing inputs and an iterative algorithm, wherein the staffing plan comprises a table of a plurality of staffing assignments, wherein each staffing assignment of the plurality of staffing assignments comprises a staff member identifier, a shift identifier indicative of an assigned shift, a product line identifier indicative of a product line to which a
PNG
media_image1.png
5
3
media_image1.png
Greyscale
staff member is assigned, or a combination thereof, wherein the iterative algorithm comprises a Hungarian algorithm that uses a cost matric that assigns lower cost to staffing assignments that pair operators having different certifications on a same product line to facilitate cross-training between a plurality of staff members;
control a user interface to display the staffing plan; receive real-time data indicative of day-of staffing adjustments, wherein the real-time data comprises a monitored attendance of one or more staff members, wherein the controller is configured to receive the monitored attendance from an attendance system;
receive additional real-time data of the planned manufacturing operation from one or more sensors of an industrial automation system;
process the additional real-time data to determine real-time performance data;
generate an updated the staffing plan based on the real-time data and the iterative algorithm; adjust an operation of a motor of a production line of the industrial automation system based on the updated staffing plan and the real-time performance data; and control the user interface to display real-time performance data and the updated staffing plan to the production environment.
The Applicant's Specification titled " SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANUFACTURING APPLICATIONS" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to determine a staff plan based on staffing inputs and display the schedule to a user interface " (Spec. figure 13).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are recites the abstract idea of determine a staff plan based on staffing inputs and display the schedule to a user interface. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (ii) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of determine a staff plan based on staffing inputs and display the schedule to a user interface. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to Certain methods of organizing human activity –commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind by determining an updated schedule based on monitoring staff attendance. These determinations evaluation could be done the same way mentally or manually with a pen and paper. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to Mental Processes –concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion);” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-20 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 (Similarly claims 9, and 16) Canceled
claim 3 (Similarly claims 10, and 17) Cancelled
claim 4 (Similarly claims 11, and 18) receive an input corresponding to a manual adjustment of the staffing plan; and control the user interface to display the manually adjusted staffing plan.
claim 5 (Similarly claims 12, and 19) wherein the controller is configured to determine an additional staffing plan based on the one or more staffing inputs and the iterative algorithm in response to a number of manual adjustments of the staffing plan exceeding a threshold number of manual adjustments of the staffing plan.
claim 6 (Similarly claims 13, and 20) wherein the manual adjustment comprises a reassignment of a staff member from a first staffing assignment to a second staffing assignment, a removal of the staff member from a third staffing assignment, or a combination thereof.
claim 7 (Similarly claim 14) wherein the controller is configured to query the generated staffing plan based on one or more parameters.
claim 21 wherein the staffing application is configured to determine a cost matrix of the Hungarian algorithm based on an operator certification, a line priority, an operator availability, or a combination thereof.
claim 22 wherein the staffing application is configured to send the staffing plan to a dashboards application configured to control the user interface.
claim 23 wherein the plurality of work orders is organized based on a priority of completion.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-23 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. A system, comprising:
a controller comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and
one or more processors, wherein the controller is configured to:
at least one database, a scheduling application,
an iterative algorithm, Hungarian algorithm
control a user interface to display the an attendance system;
control the user interface, an automation system.
Claim 8. via a processor, one or more staffing inputs from at least one database, an iterative algorithm, a user interface Hungarian algorithm, an automation system
Claim 15. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising processor-executable routines that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising; at least one database, a scheduling application, an iterative algorithm, a user interface, user interface. Hungarian algorithm, an automation system
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, 8 and 20 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a system, a controller, a memory, processors, database, scheduling application, an iterative algorithm, Hungarian algorithm, a user interface, attendance system, , an automation system, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, (fig. 1). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, 8 and 15 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The additional elements of a “an iterative algorithm, Hungarian algorithm”. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “an iterative algorithm, Hungarian algorithm” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for determining a staff plan based on staffing inputs and display the schedule to a user interface and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention determine a staff plan based on staffing inputs and display the schedule to a user interface. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-23 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 for example claim 22 a dashboard but, these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 8 and 15. furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-23 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claims 1, 8, and 15 include a system, a controller, a memory, processors, database, scheduling application, an iterative algorithm, a Hungarian algorithm, , an automation system, a user interface, attendance system, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to determining a staff plan based on staffing inputs and display the schedule to a user interface.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-23 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art of record are Wayne et al. US 2024/0020602: System and methods for generating multiple schedules for computational efficiency, Sen et al. EP 3706053: Cognitive System, Banasthali IN 202311027519: Design and implementation of a smart factory system using industrial automation technologies Sisselman, Michael E., and Ward Whitt. "Value‐based routing and preference‐based routing in customer contact centers." Production and Operations Management 16.3 (2007): 277-291. None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in independent claims, “wherein the iterative algorithm comprises a Hungarian algorithm that uses a cost matric that assigns lower cost to staffing assignments that pair operators having different certifications on a same product line to facilitate cross-training between a plurality of staff members; … generate an updated the staffing plan based on the real-time data and the iterative algorithm; adjust an operation of a motor of a production line of the industrial automation system based on the updated staffing plan and the real-time performance data;” The reason for withdrawn the art rejection under 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-23 in the instant application is not apply because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vasnani et al. US 2024/0296397: Method and system for reducing understaffing conditions by enabling scheduling of a flexible activity request in a workforce management (WFM) system.
Colon US 2023/0293120: System, method, apparatus, and computer program product for jurisdictionally compliant staffing management within corrections facilities.
Chen et al. US 2023/0178228: System and method of dynamically generating work assignments.
Mimassi WO 2021/207116: Zero-touch payroll management system.
Yeh et al. US 2020/0119890: Communication device and a method for full duplex scheduling.
Goyal et al. US 2015/0170294: Method and apparatus for scheduling multiple social media posts to maximize engagement and on-site activity.
Sisselman, Michael E., and Ward Whitt. "Value‐based routing and preference‐based routing in customer contact centers." Production and Operations Management 16.3 (2007): 277-291.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights