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 non-final rejection. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23 are pending.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 02/09/2026, amending claim 1, 8, and 15. Cancelling claims 3, 9, and 17.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained.
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 103, will be maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments date 02/09/2026 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 configured to increase an amount of 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; 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):
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical
application of the alleged judicial exception.
The Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims amount to more than the alleged abstract ideas.
….
Therefore, the Court's major concern that forms the basis of a § 101 rejection is not present here. Further, the Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed approach recites new techniques for generating a staffing recommendation, a prioritized schedule, and a staffing plan for a production environment.
In the present case, when taken as a whole, the independent claim recitations are clearly narrowly focused and tailored to the disclosed approach, and thus constitute a non-preemptive, concrete, specific application.
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, 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, 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, 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.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 103:
Applicant argues (Pages 17-19 of the remarks):
See Sen, paragraph 79. However, Sen does not disclose that the assignor 530 nor the assignment model used by the assignor 530 are configured to increase an amount of cross-training between a plurality of staff members. For at least these reasons, the Applicant submits that Wayne and Sen do not teach or suggest the foregoing aspects of amended independent claim 1, and thus Wayne and Sen cannot support a prima facie case of obviousness of amended independent claim 1 and its dependent claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. configured to increase an amount of cross-training between a plurality of staff members; (Wayne disclose in [0383-0391], [0403], [0457], [0691], EN: employee identifier … shift identifier (upcoming shift) … shift properties … upcoming shift”. Also, see [0307] & [0424], “manufacturing line with multiple stations”. Wayne [0500-0501], “optimizing a schedule for one or more of: benefits to education, e.g., experienced employee with several new employees, or maximize cross-training across skills/departments”.
Wayne disclose the above limitation but, specifically fails to disclose wherein the iterative algorithm comprises a Hungarian algorithm;
However, Sen teaches the following limitation:
wherein the iterative algorithm comprises a Hungarian algorithm; (Sen [0079-0082], “assignment models …. Monge-Kantorovich formulations, Hungarian method”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wayne, to include the feature as taught by Sen, in order to use a Hungarian algorithm (Sen [0079-0082]) to improve the performance and quality of a schedule. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Wayne and Sen, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Further, Examiner introduced a new reference to teach a sensor of an industrial automation system (see below 103 rejection).
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 configured to increase an amount of 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; 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.
Claim 8. via a processor, one or more staffing inputs from at least one database, an iterative algorithm, a user interface Hungarian algorithm
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
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, 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, 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.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will be followed/begin by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be place to further explain a rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wayne et al. US 2024/0020602 (hereinafter Wayne) in view of Sen, Prabir EP 3706053 (hereinafter Sen) in view of Singh IN202311027519 (hereinafter Singh).
Regarding 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 to configured to: (Wayne figs. 1-3, 5-6, 35-36 46 EN: disclose controllers, processors and memory executable instructions”. [0298] & [0474], EN: application of scheduling employee(s) (staffing) )
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; (EN: here only one option is required to cover the limitation. See Wayne [0004], [0322], [0326], [0407], [0413], [0415], [0514], [518], and [0568], EN: an absenteeism (absence) model predicts that several employees will call0in0sick or updates it turnover rates, hiring prediction, etc. “.) receive a prioritized schedule of a plurality of work orders from a scheduling application, a staffing recommendation received from the scheduling application, or a combination thereof; (Wayne [0081], [094], [0399], [0637] [0662], [0735], [0760-0761], [0836], “receiving, and/or determining one or more values, parameters, inputs, data, or other information ("receiving data"). Operations to receive data include, without limitation: receiving data via a user input; receiving data over a network of any type”. EN: prioritizing/ranking the objective to maximize an overall objective and prioritizing/ranking schedule that takes different associated priorities into account, the objective and limitations/constraints”. Also, see [0657-0659], “Project A must be completed before Project D can commence. Additionally, the system may augment user entered dependencies with dependencies developed from the use of shared resources such as personnel and equipment needs”.)
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, (Wayne [0307], [0322], [0374], [0379], [0385], [0413], [0415], [0427], [0432], [0478], [0483], [0500-0504], [0568], [0570], [0637], [0665], [0685], [0691], [0701], “an artificial intelligence … make suggestion to either the employee or the employee’s employer(s) about sharing possibilities”, “output back into the bootstrap scheduling module to form a feedback loop which tries”.) 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 staff member is assigned, or a combination thereof,[...] configured to increase an amount of cross-training between a plurality of staff members; (Wayne [0383-0391], [0403], [0457], [0691], EN: employee identifier … shift identifier (upcoming shift) … shift properties … upcoming shift”. Also, see [0307] & [0424], “manufacturing line with multiple stations”. Wayne [0500-0501], “optimizing a schedule for one or more of: benefits to education, e.g., experienced employee with several new employees, or maximize cross-training across skills/departments”.)
control a user interface to display the staffing plan (Wayne [0004-0008], [0018], [0024-0025], [0086], [0091], [0098], [0101], [0439], [0456], EN: displaying the staffing plan”) to a production environment associated with the planned manufacturing operation; (Wayne [0307], “manufacturing line with multiple stations”. Also, see [0424], and [0431])
receive real-time data indicative of day-of staffing adjustments, (Wayne [0629], “adjusting the schedule data .. analyzing the schedule data may include determining one or more properties of the schedule data, e.g., a number and/or timing of shifts, assigned workers, estimated number of sales, estimated profits, estimated costs in wages, and/or other types of data related to a schedule”. Also, see [0630], [0633], [0634], [0638-0639], [0640], [0643], [0644], [0659], [0660], “real-time schedule adjustments or 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; (Wayne [0579], “The extracted trend 160420 may be an attendance rate 160406 with respect to one or more of: a shift time, a number of shifts, a shift position within a workweek, a commute distance, a number of co-workers on a shift, or a number of managers on a shift”. [0636], [0104], [0331], [0333], [0570], [0574], [0575], [0579], [0618], “real-time … feedback/result”. )
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; and control the user interface to display real-time performance data and the updated staffing plan to the production environment. (Wayne [0004-008], [0018], [0024-0025], [0086], [0098], [0101], [0314-0315], [0439], [0456], and [0660], EN: updating plan based on the real-time data and displaying the updated staffing plan”.)
Wayne disclose the above limitation but, specifically fails to disclose wherein the iterative algorithm comprises a Hungarian algorithm; receive additional real-time data of the planned manufacturing operation from one or more sensors of an industrial automation system;
However, Sen teaches the following limitation:
wherein the iterative algorithm comprises a Hungarian algorithm; (Sen [0079-0082], “assignment models …. Monge-Kantorovich formulations, Hungarian method”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wayne, to include the feature as taught by Sen, in order to use a Hungarian algorithm (Sen [0079-0082]) to improve the performance and quality of a schedule. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Wayne and Sen, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Wayne in view of Sen disclose the above limitations but, specifically fails to disclose receive additional real-time data of the planned manufacturing operation from one or more sensors of an industrial automation system;
However, Singh teaches the following limitations:
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; (Singh [0034-0040], “The industrial automation devices may be configured to communicate with the control unit through wired or wireless connections. This enables the control unit to receive realtime data from the industrial automation devices, such as sensor readings and equipment status … predictive maintenance system, which monitors the performance of the industrial automation devices and generates alerts when maintenance is needed. For example, if a motor is running hotter than usual, the control unit may generate an alert indicating that the motor may require maintenance”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wayne, to include the feature as taught by Singh, in order to determine a performance based on receive additional real-time data of the planned manufacturing operation from one or more sensors of an industrial automation system (Singh [0034-0040]) to improve the performance and quality of a schedule. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Wayne, Sen and Singh, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 2: Cancelled
Regarding Claim 3: Cancelled
Regarding Claim 4:
Wayne in view of Sen in view of Singh disclose the system of claim 1,
Wayne further teach wherein the controller is configured to:
receive an input corresponding to a manual adjustment of the staffing plan; and
control the user interface to display the manually adjusted staffing plan. (Wayne [0027-0028], [0030], [0032], [0046-0047], [0063-0064], [0066-0072], [0086-0098], [0306], [0311], [0323], [0377], [0422-0423], [0438], [0448-0452], [0463], [0518], [0529-0530], [0640-0644], [0740-0749], EN: the system is able to command and control inputs and receive data adjust and modify the optimized schedules including adjusting and modifying the optimized schedule generated via a user interface”.)
Regarding Claim 5:
Wayne in view of Sen in view of Singh disclose the system of claim 4,
Wayne further teach 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. (Wayne [0439], [0456], and [0757], “an alert message, or a change in a bias of a connector circuit 20608, such as increasing or decreasing a weighting 20620 of an output of a module, such as an external model 410, a primary business model 424, a secondary business model 414, as shown in FIG. 4, and/or any other model/module/circuit as described elsewhere herein. The corrective action command value 20618 may correspond to a direct scheduling change resulting in a change to schedule properties 20134 such that the corresponding schedule properties 20134 no longer violate, or violates less, a schedule norm 20614 threshold” . and “monitor threshold data biases and discard a schedule when the threshold is exceeded and start with a different schedule”.)
Regarding Claim 6:
Wayne in view of Sen in view of Singh disclose the system of claim 5, 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. (Wayne [0630], “adjustment may remove shifts from the employee and/or adjust … to reduce the amount of overtime the employee is scheduled”. [0364] & [0423], “change to the schedule data, e.g., an addition of a shift, a swapping of assigned workers to a shift, a removal of a shift, an extension of a shift, a shortening of a shift, and/or any other change to a property of a schedule”. Also, see [0379])
Regarding Claim 7:
Wayne in view of Sen in view of Singh disclose the system of claim 1,
Wayne further teach wherein the controller is configured to query the generated staffing plan based on one or more parameters. (Wayne [0027-0028], [0030], [0032], [0046-0047], [0063-0064], [0066-0072], [0086-0098], [0306], [0311], [0323], [0377], [0422-0423], [0438], [0448-0452], [0463], [0518], [0529-0530], [0640-0644], [0740-0749], EN: the system is able to command and control inputs and receive data adjust and modify the optimized schedules including adjusting parameters, removing variables, removing elements of the data”.)
Regarding Claim 8:
Claim 8 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 8 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9: Cancelled
Regarding Claim 10: Cancelled
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 4 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 5 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected under the same rational as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 6 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 7 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected under the same rational as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 is the non-transitory claim corresponding to the system claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16: Cancelled
Regarding Claim 17: Cancelled
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 is the non-transitory claim corresponding to the system claim 4 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 is the non-transitory claim corresponding to the system claim 5 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 is the non-transitory claim corresponding to the system claim 6 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 21:
(New) Wayne in view of Sen in view of Singh disclose the system of claim 1,
Wayne further teach 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. (EN: here only one option is required. Wayne figure 27 element 270114 “determining availability data for the employee”. Figure 29 [0022-0023])
Regarding Claim 22:
(New) Wayne in view of Sen in view of Singh disclose the system of claim 1,
Wayne further teach wherein the staffing application is configured to send the staffing plan to [[a dashboards]] application configured to control the user interface. (Wayne [0027-0028], [0030], [0032], [0046-0047], [0063-0064], [0066-0072], [0086-0098], [0306], [0311], [0323], [0377], [0422-0423], [0438], [0448-0452], [0463], [0518], [0529-0530], [0640-0644], [0740-0749], EN: the system is able to command and control inputs and receive data adjust and modify the optimized schedules including adjusting and modifying the optimized schedule generated via a user interface”.)
Wayne disclose the above limitation but, specifically fails to disclose a dashboards application
However, Sen teaches the following limitation:
a dashboards application configured to control the user interface. (see figure 15 EN: disclose a dashboard to control the user interface”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wayne, to include the feature as taught by Sen, in order to include a dashboard to control the user interface (Sen figure 15). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Wayne and Sen, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 23:
(New) Wayne in view of Sen in view of Singh disclose the system of claim 1,
Wayne further teach wherein the plurality of work orders is organized based on a priority of completion. (Wayne [0081], [094], [0399], [0637] [0662], [0735], [0760-0761], [0836], “receiving, and/or determining one or more values, parameters, inputs, data, or other information ("receiving data"). Operations to receive data include, without limitation: receiving data via a user input; receiving data over a network of any type”. EN: prioritizing/ranking the objective to maximize an overall objective and prioritizing/ranking schedule that takes different associated priorities into account, the objective and limitations/constraints”. Also, see [0657-0659], “Project A must be completed before Project D can commence. Additionally, the system may augment user entered dependencies with dependencies developed from the use of shared resources such as personnel and equipment needs”.)
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.
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