Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
This communication is in response to application filed on January 29, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter (See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o)). Specifically for language found in claims 4, 5, 7, 14, 15 and 17.
Correction of the above is required.
Drawings
Figures 2, 4 and 6 submitted on January 29, 2024. are not legible. New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings.
The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 14 recite: “update a shift schedule based on the chosen providers and the respective provide profiles”. It appears the bold language should recite provider. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Limitations in claims 13, 15 and 16 constitute conditional method steps. “If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.” Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat’lArbitration Forum, Inc., 243 F. App’x 603, 607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished); Exparte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WF 6277792, at *3-4 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential). Therefore, contingent steps found in claims 13, 15 and 16 that depend from conditional steps which are not required to be performed, do not have patentable weight.
Claim 7 recites “can”, Claims 4, 14 and 17 recite “allow”, which are interpreted as optional language. According to MPEP 2111.04 “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed”. Therefore, the recited optional functions in claims 4 and 7 (or steps in claim 14 and 17) do not have patentable weight.
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.
Step 1: Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). (MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-10 describe tangible system components, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., machine or manufacture.
Claims 11-20 recite a series of steps, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. (MPEP 2106.04).
Representative claim 11 recites:
A computer-implemented method for managing a network-based service, comprising:
establishing a provider portal for a plurality of providers to each create a provider profile;
establishing a facility portal for at least one facility to send a vacancy request to fulfill one or more vacancies;
receiving, over one or more networks, the vacancy request from the facility;
determining a set of potential providers, to fulfill the vacancies, based on the provider profiles including availabilities, a compliance requirement, and the vacancy request, wherein the compliance requirement includes a government compliance requirement and a facility compliance requirement;
determining a ranking of the set of the providers based on the provider profiles and the vacancy request; and
arranging the providers to fulfill the vacancies based at least in part on the ranking and the provider profiles until all vacancies have been fulfilled.
The italicized limitations above, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, exemplify interactions between people.
For example, but for the “computer-implemented” language, the steps of establishing, receiving, determining, and arranging in the context of this claim encompasses steps of
a person establishing a paper-based system for a plurality of providers to each create a provider profile;
the person establishing a paper-based system for at least one facility to send a vacancy request to fulfill one or more vacancies;
the person receiving, the vacancy request from the facility;
the person determining a set of potential providers, to fulfill the vacancies, based on the provider profiles including availabilities, a compliance requirement, and the vacancy request, wherein the compliance requirement includes a government compliance requirement and a facility compliance requirement;
the person determining a ranking of the set of the providers based on the provider profiles and the vacancy request; and
the person arranging the providers to fulfill the vacancies based at least in part on the ranking and the provider profiles until all vacancies have been fulfilled. (e.g., a scheduler creates a paper-based system where nurses can create their profiles (e.g., a paper file for each nurse); the scheduler creates a paper-based system for a clinic where their personnel can request the scheduler to schedule an open shift; the scheduler looks at the nurse profiles including availabilities, the nurse and clinic licenses, and the vacancy request and based on that determines potential nurses, to schedule for the open shift; the scheduler ranks the set of nurses based on their profiles and the open shift; and the scheduler schedules the nurses based at least in part on the ranking and the nurse profiles until all open shifts are covered).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas 1 .
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition, the limitations of establishing, receiving, determining, arranging, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Please see the “scheduler” example above.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas2 .
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 recites the same abstract idea as identified above in claim 11, and dependent claims 2-10 and -12-20 further narrow it.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Prong Two distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
“A computing system” (claim 1);
“one or more processors” (claim 1);
“one or more memory resources storing instruction” (claim 1);
“computer” (claim 11);
“a provider portal” (claim 1, 7, 11, 17);
“a facility portal” (claim 1, 7, 11, 17);
“one or more networks” (claim 1, 2, 11, 12);
The limitations of “A computing system”; “one or more processors”; “one or more memory resources storing instruction” and “computer” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception).
The claimed limitations of “a provider portal”, “a facility portal”, “one or more networks” are interpreted as field of use limitations. Describing the abstract idea as involving the internet merely describe the environment in which the activity occurs. As such, these limitations alone and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment).
Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)). (MPEP 2106.05)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “A computing system”; “one or more processors”; “one or more memory resources storing instruction” and “computer”, alone and in combination amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Similarly, the additional elements of “a provider portal”, “a facility portal”, “one or more networks”, are merely field of use limitations which neither alone nor in combination provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, claims 1-20 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et. al. (US 2008/0027783 Al, hereinafter Hughes), in view of Torque, Nelly (AU 2021245258 A1, hereinafter Torque).
As per claim 1, Hughes discloses a computing system for managing a network-based service, the computing system comprising:
one or more processors (Figure 30); and
one or more memory resources storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to:
establish a provider portal for a plurality of providers to each create a provider profile (Fig. 8);
establish a facility portal for at least one facility to send a vacancy request to fulfill one or more vacancies (Fig. 17, 18, [0092] “To seek out and hire workers, hiring entities post shifts and wait for responses. To do so, a user representing the entity enters preferences for skills, rate, ratings, location and experience.”);
receive, over one or more networks, the vacancy request from the facility ([0004] “A
shift staffing request is received from a hiring entity” and Figure 29 showing network);
determine a set of potential providers, to fulfill the vacancies, based on the provider profiles including availabilities, a compliance requirement, and the vacancy request, wherein the compliance requirement includes a government compliance requirement and a facility compliance requirement (Fig. 10);
determine a ranking of the set of the providers based on the provider profiles and the vacancy request (Fig. 10);
arrange the providers to fulfill the vacancies based at least in part on the ranking and the provider profiles (Fig. 20, provider’s booked shifts).
Hughes does not explicitly disclose that the “arrange” function occurs until all vacancies have been fulfilled.
However, Torque teaches arranging providers to fulfill facility vacancies based at least in part on a ranking and provider profiles until all vacancies have been fulfilled ([0054] “This may be repeated […] until the request to work has been accepted.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include finding providers until all vacancies have been fulfilled as taught by Torque in the system and method of Hughes, in order to increase the likelihood that a provider will be found, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, the computer system of claim 1, Hughes further discloses wherein the executed set of instructions further causes the computer system to:
send a first recommendation list based on the ranking, over one or more networks, to the facility for a facility confirmation ([0108]);
receive the facility confirmation from the facility (Fig. 19, interface with “Accept” or “Reject” candidates, in addition to “Responses Awaiting You Attention. Note: If you have not made a selection by upon expiration of your posted shift, Alzling will place you with the highest rated member” [0110] “In one such embodiment, the hiring entity is presented with a list of workers that responded for each shift, and the hiring entity may then accept or reject each response.”);
sending one or more providers, based on the facility confirmation, invitations regarding the vacancy request and request for provider confirmations ([0104] “URGENT: You qualify for an Immediate Booking Shift! The first professional to respond to this shift will win it and be booked.”); and
updating a shift schedule based on the facility confirmations and the provider confirmations ([0111] “When a shift is booked, the worker and the hiring entity are notified.”).
As per claim 3, the computer system of claim 2, Hughes further discloses wherein when the provider cancels the provider confirmation, the executed set of instructions further causes the computer system to:
send a new vacancy request ([0118] “A worker may cancel a shift for which she has already been booked to work and in some cases cancelled shifts may be reposted for other workers to fill.”);
determine a set of potential providers based on the provider profiles, the compliance requirement, and the vacancy request (Fig. 10, Fig. 19);
determine a ranking of the set of the providers based on the provider profiles and the vacancy request (Fig. 10, Fig. 19);
send a recommendation list based on the ranking, to the facility for a facility confirmation ([0108]);
send one or more provider, based on the facility confirmation, invitations regarding the vacancy request and request for provider confirmations ([0104]); and
update the shift schedule based on the provider confirmations ([0111]).
Hughes does not explicitly disclose that the set of potential providers, the ranking, and the facility confirmation are new, or that the recommendation list is a second list.
However, as shown above, Hughes discloses that the vacancy request is reposted.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that reposting a vacancy request would entail repeating the original functions anew.
As per claim 4, the computer system of claim 1, Hughes further discloses wherein the executed set of instructions further causes the computer system to:
allow one or more providers to add an availability offer to the respective provider profile, wherein the availability offer includes a shift time, a pay rate, a role, and a preferred area (Fig. 12, shows provider’s shift preferences);
determine the set of potential providers based on the respective provider profile with the availability offer (Fig. 10, Fig. 19);
determine the ranking of the set of providers based on the provider profile with the availability offer (Fig. 10, Fig. 19);
choose one or more providers based on the ranking to fulfill the vacancies (Fig. 13 “Good news! We have located shifts that meet your profile and requirements.”);
update a shift schedule based on the chosen providers and the respective provide profiles ([0111] “When a shift is booked, the worker and the hiring entity are notified.”).
inform the chosen providers of the vacancy request and the shift schedule (Fig. 20, “Your currently booked shifts are listed in the table below”); and
Hughes does not explicitly disclose repeat the process until all the vacancies have been fulfilled.
However, Torque teaches repeating the process until all the vacancies have been fulfilled ([0054] “This may be repeated […] until the request to work has been accepted.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include finding providers until all vacancies have been fulfilled as taught by Torque in the system and method of Hughes, in order to increase the likelihood that a provider will be found, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 5, the computer system of claim 4, Hughes further discloses wherein when the provider cancels the availability offer after the shift schedule has been updated, the executed set of instructions further causes the computer system to ([0118] “A worker may cancel a shift for which she has already been booked to work and in some cases cancelled shifts may be reposted for other workers to fill.”):
determine a set of potential providers based on the associated provider profiles with the availability offers (Fig. 10, Fig. 19);
determine a ranking of the set of providers based on the provider profile with the availability offer (Fig. 10, Fig. 19);
choose one or more providers based on the ranking to fulfill the vacancies (Fig. 13);
update the shift schedule based on the chosen providers ([0111]); and
inform the chosen provider of the vacancy request and the shift schedule (Fig. 20).
Hughes does not explicitly disclose that the set of potential providers, and the ranking, are new.
However, as shown above, Hughes discloses that reposting the vacancy request due to a provider’s cancellation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that reposting a vacancy request would entail repeating the original functions anew.
As per claim 6, the computer system of claim 4, Hughes further discloses wherein if there are no more providers with the availability offer to fulfill the vacancies, the executed set of instructions further causes the computer system to:
determine an urgency parameter based at least in part on a current time and a time of the vacancies ([0121] “Hiring Entity High Priority”).
Hughes does not explicitly disclose, but Torque teaches
wherein if there are no more providers with availability offer to fulfill vacancies, executed set of instructions further causes a computer system to:
determine an urgency parameter based at least in part on a current time and a time of the vacancies ([0133] “the communication server 20 may retransmit the request to work every 30 minutes. In another example, the communication server 20 may retransmit the request to work every 4 hours if the start time is outside of a 12 hour period, and retransmit the request to work every 30 minutes if the start time is inside the 12 hour period.”);
determine a first set of potential providers based on the provider profiles, compliance requirement, the urgency parameter, and a location of the facility ([0128] “A group that is first in the order of sequence consists of ranked workers that meet all the criteria”);
send the providers within the first set invitations to fulfill the vacancy and request for provider confirmations ([0129] “The communication list of ranked workers initially comprises the ranked workers from the group that is first in the order of sequence.”);
if there are still vacancies to be fulfilled after sending invitations to the first set of providers, determine a second set of potential providers based on the associated provider profiles, the compliance requirement, the urgency parameter, and the location of the facility, wherein the second set includes more potential providers than the first set ([0129] “The list of ranked workers may subsequently be populated with the ranked workers from other groups at later steps.”);
send the providers within the second set invitations to fulfill the vacancy and request for provider confirmations ([0129] “The communication server 20 subsequently transmits the request to work to the mobile device associated with each ranked worker from the list of ranked workers at step 106.”, [0130] “At decision 108, each mobile device is configured to accept an input from each ranked worker to either accept or decline the request to work.”);
update a shift schedule based on the provider confirmation ([0130] “The mobile device that receives the first input to accept the request to work may transmit the acceptance of the work request to the communication server 20. The communication server 20 subsequently designates the worker as the shift worker at step 110, ending the sub process.”); and
continue until all vacancies have been fulfilled ([Fig. 8, where the process does not end until a worker vacancies have been fulfilled).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include creating groups of potential providers and iterate the search based on the different groups until all vacancies have been fulfilled as taught by Torque in the system and method of Hughes, in order to increase the likelihood that a provider will be found, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 7, the computer system of claim 1, Hughes further discloses
wherein the facility can update the vacancy request at the facility portal (Fig. 10 “To change a posted shift, cancel it, and enter a new shift.”), the providers can update their provider profiles at the provider portal, the provider profile includes one or more certification, one or more licenses, one or more government documentations, a pay rate, an aggregate performance rating, and a residence area (Fig. 8, Fig. 12, Fig. 25).
As per claim 8, the computer system of claim 1, Hughes further discloses wherein the executed set of instructions further causes the computer system to:
send a performance metrics questionnaire, after a shift is confirm complete, to the facility for a feedback regarding the provider's performance during the shift (Fig. 24);
receive the performance questionnaire (Fig. 24); and
update the provider profile of the provider based on the performance questionnaire (Fig. 25).
As per claim 9, the computer system of claim 1, Hughes further discloses wherein the executed set of instructions further causes the computer system to:
establish a termination criterion based on the compliance requirement and a facility requirement from the facility (Fig. 15, reasons for blocking a provider. [0108] “Modification of the timecard”); and
determine, based on the provider profile and the termination criterion, whether to terminate one of the providers in the provider portal (Fig. 15 “block a professional from future shifts.” [0108] where provider is not yet terminated).
As per claim 10, the computer system of claim 1, Hughes further discloses wherein the executed set of instructions further causes the computer system to:
determine whether the provider is compliant with regards to the compliance requirement based on the provider profile (Fig. 12 “Your CPR Certification is due to expire within 30 days”);
request the provider to update the provider profile to satisfy the compliance requirement (Fig. 12 “Your CPR Certification is due to expire within 30 days”); and
stop including the provider during the vacancy fulfillment process until the compliance requirement is satisfied (Fig. 18, e.g., CPR Certification must be current in order to include provider).
As per claims 11-20, these claims recite substantially similar limitations as claims 1-10 and are rejected under the same art and rationale.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Rohini Rao BOCHATON (US 2018/0301218 Al). Discloses computer systems and methods to match healthcare workers (e.g., nurses) with available shifts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAJIME ROJAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5491. The examiner can normally be reached Th-Fr, M-T 8AM - 5PM ET.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/HAJIME ROJAS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682
1 Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
2 Mental Processes
concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)