DETAILED ACTION
This office action is made final. Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 01/05/2026, amended claims 1, 6-8, and 13-16; claims 4-5 and 11-12 has been canceled.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection to claims 1-20, under 35 USC 101 (Alice), will be maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received on date 01/05/2026 regarding the 103 rejections have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. Accordingly these rejections are withdrawn.
The remaining arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Moreover, any new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by Applicant's amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues that “the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the specific "abstract idea" alleged by Applicant is not certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes.” Examiner respectively disagrees.
Pursuant to 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, in order to determine whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, under Step 2A, we first (1) determine whether the claims recite limitations, individually or in combination, that fall within the enumerated subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes), and (2) determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55. Next, if a claim (1) recites an abstract idea and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, in order to determine whether the claim recites an “inventive concept,” under Step 2B, we then determine whether the claim recites any of the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and in combination, are significantly more than the abstract idea itself. 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
Here, under the first prong of Step 2A, the claims (claim 1, and similarly claims 8, and 15) recite “periodically determining, from agent profiles, a set of agents which satisfy a predefined time-off criterion using a schedule request manager storing and retrieving schedule data; wherein the recommended list of dates is generated m accordance with staffing prediction data for the dates; classifying the determined set of agents into at least two subsets in accordance with historic time-off data.
A claim recites mental processes when the claim recites concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), wherein if the claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the claim being practically performed in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is in the mental process category. Id. at 52 n.14. Here, in view of the above claim limitations, as a whole, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited periodically determining, from a datastore of agent profiles, a set of agents which satisfy a predefined time-off criterion using a schedule request manager microservice operated by a computer server and storing and retrieving schedule data could all be reasonably interpreted as a human using their mind to make observations to determining, from a datastore of agent profiles, a set of agents and classifying the determined set of agents into at least two subsets in accordance with historic time-off data and a human using their mind to perform evaluations and use judgment based on the observations to determine and classifying the determined set of agents into at least two subsets in accordance with historic time-off data. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the claims are directed to mental processes.
In addition, all of the above limitations (i.e. notifying, via a digital message, one or more agents of the determined set of agents of a recommended list of dates on which to take a time-off, prioritising an approval of a time-off request submitted to an agent terminal computer device using a time-off request platform and the schedule requests manager microservice by a first agent of a first subset of the at least two subsets over an approval of a time-off request submitted to an agent terminal computer device using the time-off request platform and the schedule requests manager microservice by an agent of a second subset of the at least two subsets, wherein the prioritising comprises initiating an approval process of the time-off request submitted by the agent of the first subset after a predefined first duration, and delaying, via the schedule request manager microservice, initiation of the approval process for the time-off request submitted by the agent of the second subset for a predefined second duration greater than the first duration) make up certain methods of organizing human activity. Thus, contrary to Applicant 's assertions, the claims are also directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant argues that "claim 1 as amended sets forth a combination of interrelated computer elements and specific, non-generic use of clearly technological elements to provide specific improvements to technology - which would integrate any alleged abstract idea or concept into practical application.” Examiner respectively disagrees.
As discussed above, under the second prong of Step 2A, we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55.
Here, under the second prong of Step 2A, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of claim 1, and similarly claims 8, and 15, are the recitations of “periodically determining, agent profiles, a set of agents which satisfy a predefined time-off criterion using a schedule request manager and storing and retrieving schedule data; and notifying, one or more agents of the determined set of agents of a recommended list of dates on which to take a time-off, wherein the recommended list of dates is generated in accordance with staffing prediction data for the dates; classifying the determined set of agents into at least two subsets in accordance with historic time-off data; and prioritising an approval of a time-off request submitted to an agent using a time-off request and the schedule requests manager by a first agent of a first subset of the at least two subsets over an approval of a time-off request submitted to an agent using the time-off request and the schedule requests manager by an agent of a second subset of the at least two subsets, wherein the prioritising comprises initiating an approval process of the time-off request submitted by the agent of the first subset after a predefined first duration, and delaying, initiation of the approval process for the time-off request submitted by the agent of the second subset for a predefined second duration greater than the first duration are carried out by at least one computing device,” and these additional elements, individually and in combination, are nothing more than computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components.
Applicant argues that "the Claims Amount To Significantly More Than The Alleged Judicial Exception Under Eligibility Step 2B.” Examiner respectively disagrees.
The MPEP discusses that "the second part of the Alice/Mayo test [(Step 2B)] is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept," and "an 'inventive concept' is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself." MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis added). Further, the MPEP goes on to describe "Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first 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 (emphasis added).
The search for an inventive concept under § 101 is distinct from demonstrating novel and non-obviousness. See SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2-3 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018) (citing Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America at 2. In Step 2B, “[w]hat is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.” SAP America at 11. As discussed in SAP America, no matter how much of an advance the claims recite, when “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm,” “[a]n advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.” Id. at 3.
Here, under Step 2B, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of claim 1, and similarly claims 8, and 15, are the recitations of “periodically determining, agent profiles, a set of agents which satisfy a predefined time-off criterion using a schedule request manager and storing and retrieving schedule data; and notifying, one or more agents of the determined set of agents of a recommended list of dates on which to take a time-off, wherein the recommended list of dates is generated in accordance with staffing prediction data for the dates; classifying the determined set of agents into at least two subsets in accordance with historic time-off data; and prioritising an approval of a time-off request submitted to an agent using a time-off request and the schedule requests manager by a first agent of a first subset of the at least two subsets over an approval of a time-off request submitted to an agent using the time-off request and the schedule requests manager by an agent of a second subset of the at least two subsets, wherein the prioritising comprises initiating an approval process of the time-off request submitted by the agent of the first subset after a predefined first duration, and delaying, initiation of the approval process for the time-off request submitted by the agent of the second subset for a predefined second duration greater than the first duration are carried out by at least one computing device,” and these additional elements, individually and in combination, are nothing more than computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Accordingly, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claims 1 and 8 recite an abstract idea. Claims 1 and 8 include “periodically determining, agent profiles, a set of agents which satisfy a predefined time-off criterion using a schedule request manager and storing and retrieving schedule data; and notifying, one or more agents of the determined set of agents of a recommended list of dates on which to take a time-off, wherein the recommended list of dates is generated in accordance with staffing prediction data for the dates; classifying the determined set of agents into at least two subsets in accordance with historic time-off data; and prioritising an approval of a time-off request submitted to an agent using a time-off request and the schedule requests manager by a first agent of a first subset of the at least two subsets over an approval of a time-off request submitted to an agent using the time-off request and the schedule requests manager by an agent of a second subset of the at least two subsets, wherein the prioritising comprises initiating an approval process of the time-off request submitted by the agent of the first subset after a predefined first duration, and delaying, initiation of the approval process for the time-off request submitted by the agent of the second subset for a predefined second duration greater than the first duration”.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 15 recites an abstract idea. Claim 15 includes “prioritising time-off requests schedule, the method comprising: identifying one or more agent profiles which satisfy a predefined schedule criterion using a schedule request manager and storing and retrieving schedule data; and sending, to at least one agent corresponding to the identified one or more agent profiles one or more time periods on which to take a time-off, wherein the recommended list of time periods is generated in accordance with staffing prediction data for the time periods; classifying a determined set of agents including the at least one agent into at least two subsets in accordance with historic time-off data; and prioritising an approval of a time-off request submitted to an agent using a time-off request and the schedule requests manager by a first agent of a first subset of the at least two subsets over an approval of a time-off request submitted to an agent using the time-off request and the schedule requests manager by an agent of a second subset of the at least two subsets, wherein the prioritising comprises initiating an approval process of the time-off request submitted by the agent of the first subset after a predefined first duration, and delaying, initiation of the approval process for the time-off request submitted by the agent of the second subset for a predefined second duration greater than the first duration”.
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the elements above recite mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity-managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) because the elements describe a process for prioritising time-off requests. As a result, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, and 16-20 further describe the process for prioritising time-off requests. As a result, claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, and 16-20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 include a computer server, a database, terminal computer device, a digital scheduling, a digital message, at least one computer processor, and a computer readable storage medium. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, and 16-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15. As a result, claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, and 16-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claims 1, 8, and 15 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 include a computer server, a database, terminal computer device, a digital scheduling, a digital message, at least one computer processor, and a computer readable storage medium m. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, and 16-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15. As a result, claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, and 16-20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAFIZ A KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8534. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/HAFIZ A KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
03/03/2026