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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on November 28, 2025. Claims 1, 6, 8 and 11 have been amended.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending, and claims 1 and 11 are independent.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection in this Office Action.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 6, 8 and 11 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-20 has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on November 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 8, Applicant’s argues that the cited reference of Snedden (US 2024/0265321) is a continuation-in-part of U.S. 17/745,041 filed May 16, 2022, now U.S. 12,198,529 which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. 17/506673 filed on Sep. 20, 2021 now U.S. 11,308,186. This application does not discuss employee breaks and the work “break” is not found in a word search through the application.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The latest parent application 17/745,041 filed on May 16, 2022 is qualify as prior art, that also discloses a system for managing breaks of staff members, the system comprises retrieves information and rules from a database; identifies a level of risk for occurrence of an adverse event for a specific patient and ranks staff members based on their dynamic attributes to reduce the burnout status of a staff member providing special care” (see ¶ 68-70, ¶ 184-185); and “the system implements a time dependent approach when staff management want to utilize working breaks or less stressful periods for staff members with a high burnout status, and give staff member a fifteen minutes of a working break” (see ¶ 214). Thus, the system related to manage break schedules for hospital staff members. However, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of new ground(s) of 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-20 are directed to methods for scheduling and managing employee breaks, which fall within the statutory category of processes.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method as representative, the claims recite the limitations of “receiving business break preference rules and legal requirements for breaks, creating configurable break rules from the business break preference rules and the legal requirements, receiving employee shift data, calculating a first break window for a first employee break and a second break window for a second employee break, displaying a user interface with the break windows to a user, receiving a signal when a user interacts with a user interface button representing an uncompleted break and starting the employee break”. Other than reciting “by a computer having a processor and memory”, none of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are directed methods that allow user to schedule and manage employee breaks based on break rules and legal requirements, which fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping including: fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal interactions between people. The mere nominal recitation of “a computer having a processor and memory” do not take the claim out of certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a computer having a processor and memory”. The Specification describes that “utilize a special purpose or general-purpose computer including computer hardware, such as, for example, one or more processors and system memory.”(See ¶ 23). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. The courts have held that merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effect designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a computer having a processor and memory”. The Specification describes that “utilize a special purpose or general-purpose computer including computer hardware, such as, for example, one or more processors and system memory.”(See ¶ 23). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-10 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims 11-20 parallel claims 1-10—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lidbetter et al., (US 2024/0370797, hereinafter: Lidbetter), and in view of Snedden, (US 9100483 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Lidbetter discloses the a computer implemented method for scheduling and managing employee breaks comprising:
the computer receiving employee shift data for a first employee and a second employee (see ¶ 19, ¶ 31, ¶ 38-39, ¶ 47);
wherein the employee shift data includes shift start times and end times (see Fig. 2; #218; ¶ 19, ¶ 32, ¶ 45);
the computer calculating, for the first employee and the second employee, break result data comprising a required number of breaks and length of breaks for a work shift based on the employee shift data and the legal requirements (see Fig. 3B; ¶ 37-39, ¶ 42, ¶ 53);
the computer calculating a first break window for a first employee break and a second break window for a second employee break according to business preference rules (see Fig. 3B, # 308, 310; ¶ 52-53);
wherein each break window provides a start time and a stop time for a window of time which is longer than an associated break time and wherein the associated break should begin during the break window (see Fig. 3B, #302), and wherein at least one of the start time and stop time for the first break window is different than the start time and stop time for the second break window (see Fig. 3B, #328; ¶ 19, ¶ 37-48, ¶ 53); and
the computer displaying, to a user, a user interface which displays the break windows (see Fig. 3B).
Lidbetter does not explicitly the following limitations; however, Snedden in an analogous art for scheduling work shift discloses
receiving, by a computer having a processor and memory (see Fig. 5), business break preference rules and legal requirements for breaks (see col. 4, lines 20-54; col. 6, lines 3-13; col. 12, lines 3-23);
the computer creating configurable break rules from the business break preference rules and the legal requirements (see col. 12, lines 60 to col. 13, line 5; col. 15, lines 55-65);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lidbetter to include teaching of Snedden in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Lidbetter discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user interface displays, to the user, break timing alerts which show time remaining before a break window opens and which show time remaining before a break window closes (see ¶ 55-56)
In addition, claim 2 merely describes the elements of the break time alerts is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 3, Lidbetter discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user interface displays, to the user, break status indicator icons, and wherein the break status indicators display break times in minutes for breaks (see Fig. 2, 3A; ¶ 47-48, ¶ 55).
In addition, claim 3 merely describes a specific value of the break status indicators is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 4, Lidbetter discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the break status indicator icons display time remaining for in progress breaks (see Fig. 2; ¶ 43-44).
In addition, claim 4 merely describes the elements of the break status indicator icons is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 5, Lidbetter discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the break status indicator icons are displayed in different combinations of shape and color for completed, uncompleted, and in progress breaks (see Fig. 2, # 214; ¶ 44).
In addition, claim 5 merely describes the elements of the break status indicator icons is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 6, Lidbetter does not explicitly the following limitations; however, Snedden discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the business break preference rules comprise business defined rules regarding time between breaks, time between a break and a start of a shift, time between a break and the end of a shift (see col. 6, lines 3-45; col. 12, line 60 to col. 13, line 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lidbetter to include teaching of Snedden in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, claim 6 merely describing the characteristics of the break preference rules is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 7, Lidbetter does not explicitly the following limitations; however, Snedden discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user interface presents an ordered list of employees with employees on break highest, followed by employees within break windows with upcoming breaks ranked based on proximity of upcoming break window closing events, followed by employees outside of break windows ranked based on proximity of upcoming break window opening events (see Fig. 2A-B; col. 12, lines 23-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lidbetter to include teaching of Snedden in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, claim 7 merely characterizes how the breaks are presented is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 8, Lidbetter discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the break status indicator is a user interface button and wherein the method comprises the computer receiving a signal when a user interacts with a user interface button representing an uncompleted break and starting the employee break associated with said user interface button, and wherein the method comprises the computer subsequently receiving a signal when a user again interacts with said user interface button and stopping the employee break (see Fig. 2, Fig. 4; ¶ 32-33, ¶ 43-45, ¶ 49, ¶ 59, ¶ 71-72).
Regarding claim 9, Lidbetter discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user interface displays a break timing alert for each employee with an upcoming break, and wherein the break timing alert displays an indication to send an employee on break within a designated time period for employees that are currently inside of a break window, and wherein the break timing alert displays an indication to wait for a designated time period for employees that are currently outside of a break window (see ¶ 41-44, ¶ 71-74).
In addition, claim 9 merely characterizes the break time alert is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 10, Lidbetter does not explicitly the following limitations; however, Snedden discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user interface presents a prioritized list of employees wherein employees that should go on break first based on break window closing times and opening times are listed first (see Fig. 2A-B; col. 12, lines 23-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lidbetter to include teaching of Snedden in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 11, Snedden discloses a computer implemented method for scheduling and managing employee breaks for a business comprising:
receiving, by a computer having a processor and memory (see ¶ 23), employee shift data, the employee shift data including shift start times and shift end times (see ¶ 19, ¶ 31, ¶ 38-39, ¶ 47);
the computer determining a number and length of breaks for each employee based on employee shift data and break legal requirements (see Fig. 3B; ¶ 37-39, ¶ 42, ¶ 53);
the computer receiving business break preference rules (see ¶ 19, ¶ 38, ¶ 48), the business break preference rules comprising at least one of: a rule regarding timing of breaks for an employee relative to other breaks for that employee, a rule regarding timing of breaks for an employee relative to shift start time for that employee, and a rule regarding timing of breaks for an employee relative to shift end time for that employee (see Fig. 3B, #328; ¶ 19, ¶ 37-48, ¶ 53);
the computer calculating break windows for each employee break according to business break preference rules (see Fig. 3B, # 308, 310; ¶ 52-53); wherein each break window provides a start time and a stop time for a window of time which is associated with a required employee break, and wherein the associated break should begin during the break window (see Fig. 3B, #302, #328; ¶ 19, ¶ 37-48, ¶ 53); and
the computer displaying, to a user, a user interface which displays the calculated break windows for each employee (see Fig. 3B).
Lidbetter does not explicitly the following limitations; however, Snedden in an analogous art for scheduling driver breaks discloses
the computer receiving legal requirements for breaks based on a location of the business (see col. 2, lines 46-55; col. 4, lines 20-54; col. 6, lines 3-13; col. 12, lines 3-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lidbetter to include teaching of Snedden in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Lidbetter discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the user interface displays, to the user, break timing alerts, wherein the break timing alerts display at least one of time remaining before a break window opens and time remaining before a break window closes (see ¶ 55-56).
In addition, claim 12 merely describes the elements of the break time alerts is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 13, Lidbetter discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the user interface displays, to the user, break status indicator icons, and wherein the break status indicators display break times in minutes for upcoming breaks (see Fig. 2, 3A; ¶ 47-48, ¶ 55).
In addition, claim 13 merely describes a specific value of the break status indicators is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 14, Lidbetter discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the break status indicator icons display time remaining for in progress breaks (see Fig. 2; ¶ 43-44).
In addition, claim 14 merely describes the elements of the break status indicator icons is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 15, Lidbetter discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the break status indicator icons are displayed in different combinations of shape and color for completed, uncompleted, and in progress breaks (see Fig. 2, # 214; ¶ 44).
In addition, claim 15 merely describes the elements of the break status indicator icons is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 16, Lidbetter does not explicitly the following limitations; however, Snedden discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the user interface presents an ordered list of employees with employees on break highest, followed by employees within break windows with upcoming breaks ranked based on proximity of upcoming break window closing events, followed by employees outside of break windows ranked based on proximity of upcoming break window opening events (see Fig. 2A-B; ; col. 12, lines 23-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lidbetter to include teaching of Snedden in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, claim 16 merely characterizes how the breaks are presented is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 17, Lidbetter discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the break status indicator is a user interface button and an uncompleted break indicator can be interacted with by a user to start a break and then later interacted with by a user to stop a break (see Fig. 2; ¶ 43-44).
In addition, claim 17 merely characterizes the break status indicator is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 18, Lidbetter discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the user interface displays a break timing alert for each employee with an upcoming break, and wherein the break timing alert displays an indication to send an employee on break within a designated time period for employees that are currently inside of a break window, and wherein the break timing alert displays an indication to wait for a designated time period for employees that are currently outside of a break window (see ¶ 41-44, ¶ 71-74).
In addition, claim 18 merely characterizes the break time alert is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 19, Lidbetter does not explicitly the following limitations; however, Snedden discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the user interface presents a prioritized list of employees wherein employees that should go on break first based on break window closing times and opening times are listed first (see Fig. 2A-B; col. 12, lines 23-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lidbetter to include teaching of Snedden in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 20, Snedden discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the method comprises the computer displaying in the user interface, for each employee, a break timing alert (see Fig. 3A-C) comprising at least one of:
a no alert when breaks are far in the future or far in the past (see ¶ 68);
a wait alert when the next break window is in the future, wherein the wait alert displays a countdown timer indicating the time before a break can be started (see ¶ 63, ¶ 71);
a within alert when the break window is open for a limited amount of time, and wherein the within alert displays a countdown timer indicating the time limit when a break should be started (see ¶ 55-59);
a break now alert indicating the last chance to start a break and be compliant with the business break preference rules and break legal requirements (see ¶ 37, ¶ 54); and
a past time alert indicates that the break has not been taken within the break window and should be taken immediately (see ¶ 73, ¶ 77).
In addition, claim 20 merely describes the type of alert is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lawrence et al., (US 2022/0405694) discloses a method for assigning agents for shifts in a call center environment based on break rules and worker preference rules include breaks, maximum hours, minimum hours and other parameters to automatically create a rotating shift schedule.
Aykin (US 8612272) discloses a method for scheduling staff daily shift start and end times based on the length of a shift, an agent may be given one or more breaks.
Perry et al., (US 2016/0300178) discloses a method for real-time task scheduling and management based on one or more attributes in the employee information and one or more attributes in the task information.
Borza (US 2013/0090968) disclose a method of employee scheduling and management software that allows employees to respond to schedules as well as trade with other employees with confidence.
Luo et al., “Time for Break: understanding information workers’ sedentary behavior through a break prompting system”, CHI 2018 paper, April 21-26, 2018, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Soriano et al., “Integrated Employee Scheduling with Known Employee Demand, Including Breaks, Overtime, and Employee Preferences”, Omnia Science, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, February 2020.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624