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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 18/470,087, filed on September 19, 2023. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection dated June 06, 2025, Applicant on October 03, 2025, amended claims 1, 8 and 11. Claims 1-17 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are acknowledged.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 8 and 9 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to claim 8. New 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been applied to amended claims 8 and 9.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1-7 and 10-17 are hereby amended pursuant to Applicants amendments to claims 1 and 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed November 30, 2023 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks regarding the pending rejections will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed November 30, 2023.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant submits that the claims as amended are directed to a specific (as opposed to broad and generic) technology improvement to existing WFM and scheduling technology, providing a s solution to a specific problem of automatically approving or rejecting shift-trade requests - specifically where a desired target shift of each shift-trade request corresponds to the shift to be traded of a different shift-trade request. Applicant cites par. 0004 and 0092 of the specification (see p. 7, Applicant Remarks).
Applicant submits that a person of ordinary skills in the pertinent arts would recognize
that the specific process set forth in claim 8 as amended - and specifically the limitations associated with automatically approving or rejecting a subset of shift-trade requests where a desired target shift of each request corresponds to the shift to be traded of a different request in the subset - improves existing WFM and scheduling technology, which "may not be able to predict or anticipate specific shift requirements or agent preferences at a given time, leading to the unavailability of certain shifts." (Application as Filed, para. [0004]). MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1).
The core of claim 8 as amended - what the claim is in fact directed to - are the specific technology improvements provided to WFM and scheduling technology which overshadow any alleged abstract idea (and may be reflected in the operation of a schedule manager, being a core component in a scheduling system/WFM application; Application as Filed, para. [0092]). MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1).
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds the claims are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Examiner notes the advancements disclosed in RCT v. Microsoft, Diamond v. Diehr and SiRF Technology v. ITC recite improvements to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to another technology or technical field. Specifically, in RCT v. Microsoft, the claims are directed to a process of halftoning an image comprising the steps of generating a mask, comparing pixels, and using the results of the comparison to convert a binary image to a halftoned image. The process uses less memory, had faster computation times, and processed improved image quality compared to other masks, Diamond v. Diehr utilized the Arrhenius equation to improve the process of controlling the operations of a mold in curing rubber parts, and SiRF Technology v. ITC disclosed a GPS receiver utilizing software that applies a mathematical formula to improve the ability to determine its position in weak environments. In contrast, Examiner finds there are no similar improvements here. Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments are directed to improvements to an existing business process (e.g. schedule management). Examiner maintains the amended claims are directed to an abstract idea, reciting certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes without providing meaningful limitations that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant would like to point out certain claims as imposing further technological limits on the technology process set forth in independent claims 1, 8 and 11. For example:
Claim 7 requires "sending an approval notification to a set of agents who are the subject
of an approved schedule trade request"; and
Claim 9 requires "outputting an updated schedule for an approved shift-trade request".
Applicant submits that these tangible technology outputs which would integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application, and would amount to more than any alleged abstract idea, under Step 2A - prong II and Step 2B of the Alice Mayo framework (MPEP §§ 2106.05 and 2106.04).
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and finds the abovementioned limitations are considered delivering the results of the abstract idea. Examiner notes, there is not additional elements currently attached to the sending or outputting limitations, however in those circumstances the limitations would be drawn to extra-solution activities of delivering data.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant submits that claim 1 as amended is not directed to organizing human activity, and specifically to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. (see p. 8-9, Applicant Remarks).
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). None of the MPEP examples is analogous to the clearly technological solution provided by the currently claimed invention - which, as demonstrated herein - provides specific improvements to existing technology and produces tangible technological outputs.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types; see MPEP 2106.04(a). Examiner notes the important issue is whether the concept (e.g., the idea of managing queued schedule trade requests and managing shift-trade requests) is abstract (e.g., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as well as, observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper) - not whether the exact fact-pattern matches the particulars of previous court decisions. For example, in Planet Bingo, which dealt with the abstract idea of managing a game of bingo, the Federal circuit used Bilski and Alice to support the asserted abstract idea. Specifically the aspect of bingo game management which includes “solv[ing] a tampering problem and also minimiz[ing] other security risks” during bingo ticket purchases was determined to be similar to the abstract ideas of “risk hedging” during “consumer transactions,” (Bilski) and “mitigating settlement risk” in “financial transactions,” (Alice) that the Supreme Court found ineligible. Clearly, the fact patterns in Planet Bingo compared to Bilski and Alice were different, but the abstract concepts were similar. Thus, Examiner finds Applicants aforementioned remarks are not persuasive and maintains the amended claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A – Prong One. Examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant respectfully disagrees that the claims are directed to mental processes or to concepts performed in the human mind. (see p. 9-10, Applicant Remarks).
As a practical matter, a human is not capable of providing the specific improvements to WFM and scheduling technology that are achieved by the "computer processor" explicitly recited in amended claim 8. The processor performs the specific processes set forth in amended claim 8 - including the automatic approval or rejection of the subset of shift trade requests, as well as the producing of tangible technological outputs recited in dependent claims 7 and 9.
The technological solution set forth in amended claim 8 - rooted in WFM and scheduling technology and readily recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art as providing specific improvements to existing WFM and scheduling systems - clearly overshadows any alleged abstract idea, particularly any mental process that, as a practical matter, could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
Without the "practical" limitation provided by this Office doctrine, virtually any patent- eligible computer-related invention could be said to be performed in the human mind, by using pen and paper, if one's standard regarding this capability included an unreasonable amount of time and paper. For example, the patent-eligible claim in McRO could have its rule processing performed by a person with pen and paper, given enough time. See McRO, 837 F.3d 1299.
The Office's October 2019 Guidance at 7 describes that claims that can be performed in the human mind are "for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions" (see also Office Action at 7): this does not describe the present claims. The present claims perform a specific list of computer instructions, produce tangible outputs, and are not mere observations or judgements.
On pages 4-5 of the Office Action, the Examiner asserts that Applicant's claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. The Examiner asserts that the claims use generic computer components used as tools to apply the alleged abstract idea, Office Action at 4.
Claims in cases describing mere instructions to "apply" an abstract idea (in the sense of "applying it" as per Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357) and not including additional elements which "amount to significantly more" are typically directed to ideas being incidentally implemented on a computer. See, e.g., Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354-2360. In contrast, and as noted above, claim 8 as amended sets forth a specific use of clearly technological elements to provide specific improvements to technology - which would integrate any alleged abstract idea or concept into practical application, and would amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Applicant's claims as amended make use of and improve technology.
Accordingly, Applicants respectfully assert that claim 1 as amended is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Each of amended independent claims 1 and 11 include limitations different from those of claim 1, but the arguments above apply to independent claims 1 and 11 as well. The dependent claims are allowable based on their dependency from allowable base claims.
Applicants request that the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection be withdrawn.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). As stated in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the recitation of the additional elements do not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Additionally, Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant, general purpose computer elements/structure, similar to the claimed inventions system, used to apply a judicial exception, by use of instruction implemented on a computer, has not been found by the courts to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additionally, McRO was found eligible because the rules disclosed in McRO demonstrates improvements to a specific technological process (i.e., lip synchronization and manipulation of character facial expressions), thus improving computer animation without requiring an artist's constant intermediation with significant support in the specification. In contrast, Examiner finds there is no similar improvement here. The present claims aim to automate an existing business process of managing shift trade requests via the use of conventional computer functions; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Examiner finds the pending claims recite similar limitations to claims the courts have indicated may not be sufficient in showing an improvement in computer-functionality, such as accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential), A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Examiner maintains the claim recite an abstract idea constituting methods that mimic human thought processes that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper, such as observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion. Applicant has provided no detailed explanation to the configuration of the combination of additional elements nor has Applicant identified any disclosure in the claimed invention showing and/or submitting that the technology used is being improved, there was a technical problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves, or the ordered combinations of the known elements is significantly more than workforce scheduling that manages schedule trade requests. For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11-15, filed October 03, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Applicant’s arguments are considered moot because they are directed to newly amended subject matter and do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for further explanation and rationale.
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.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1-10 are directed towards a method and claims 11-17 are directed towards a system, both of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1 and 11 recite.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Specifically, periodically checking a data storage for queued schedule trade requests; identifying two corresponding queued schedule trade requests; else, if two corresponding queued schedule trade requests are not identified: identifying a set of cyclic queued schedule trade requests; else, if a set of cyclic queued schedule trade requests are not identified: repeating the step of periodically checking; automatically approving or rejecting the identified schedule trade requests based on one or more approval criteria, wherein each of the identified schedule trade requests comprises a desired target shift and a shift to be traded, and wherein the desired target shift of each identified schedule trade request corresponds to the shift to be traded of a different identified schedule trade request; and if the identified schedule trade requests were approved, outputting one or more updated schedules reflecting the approved schedule trade requests constitutes methods based on managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as well as, methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of a computer processor does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 11 recites certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claim 8 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Specifically, identifying a subset of corresponding shift-trade requests in a set of queued shift-trade requests; wherein each shift-trade request in the subset of corresponding shift-trade requests comprises a desired target shift and a shift to be traded, and wherein the desired target shift of each shift-trade request in the subset of corresponding shift-trade requests corresponds to the shift to be traded of a different shift-trade request within the subset; automatically approving or rejecting the identified subset of corresponding shift-trade requests according to a set of approval criteria; and outputting a notification of the approval or rejection thereof constitutes methods based on managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as well as, methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of a computer processor does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites a computer processor at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and therefore is directed to an abstract idea. The method using a computer processor recited in claim 8 and the system comprising: a memory containing instructions executable by at least one processor in claim 11 also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements recited in claims 8 and 11 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including the computer processor and the system comprising: a memory containing instructions executable by at least one processor amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, 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); electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements 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. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 3 and 13 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Additionally, claims 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 12 and 14-17 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in the independent claims. Therefore claims 2-10 and 12-17 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fedak, U.S. Publication No. 2018/0096285 [hereinafter Fedak], in view of Taheri et al., U.S. Publication No. 2021/0407658 [hereinafter Taheri], and further in view of O’Brien, U.S. Patent No. 6,587,831 [hereinafter O’Brien].
Referring to Claim 1, Fedak teaches
A method for digital scheduling, the method comprising, using a computer processor:
periodically checking a data storage for queued schedule trade requests (Fedak, [0010]), “a bot that listens to one or more social network communication channels for textual postings that indicate an intent to request a shift trade or substitute and an intent to accept the trade or to be the substitute… A shift management system may then be updated in some embodiments to keep data in the shift management system up to date when the bot identifies an intent to request a shift trade or substitution”; (Fedak, [0011]), “a “bot” or other software element… The bots are deployed by the employer, either directly or indirectly through a cloud service provider, to listen in on the traffic on such channels. When the bot detects that someone is trying to trade a shift, the bot may connect to the appropriate labor management system and mark the shift as being offered for trade or substitution”; (Fedak, [0021]-[0022]), “… A bot may identify a posting to a social media platform…The data processing activities may further include recording the substitute request with the scheduling system 120”;
identifying two corresponding queued schedule trade requests (Fedak, [0027]), “the data associating the rule to the assignment management system enables processing of the rule. The processing of the rule may be performed to confirm an identified intent requesting an assignment substitute for a work shift by confirming within data of the assignment management system that a first person that made the textual positing is assigned to the work shift. The processing of the rule may also or alternatively be performed to confirm an identified intent offering to be the assignment substitute for the work shift by confirming within data of the assignment management system that a second person that made the offer to be the assignment substitute is available to work in view of at least one other work shift assignment”;
if the identified schedule trade requests were approved, outputting one or more updated schedules reflecting the approved schedule trade requests (Fedak, [0022]), “…, the offer to fill the shift may be automatically approved and the rescheduling occurs. This rescheduling may include updating the scheduling system 120, updating one or more channels on one more of the social media platforms 102, 106, and sending other messages such as text messages, direct messages within one or more of the social media 102, 106 platforms, and the like”; (Fedak [0028]), “upon successfully updating the assignment management system for the second person to be the substitute, the method 300 includes adding a new textual posting to the social media platform indicating the request of the assignment substitute has been filled”; (Fedak, [0011]), “when the shift trade is accepted by another user in the forum, the bot reassigns the shift in the labor management system”.
Fedak teaches monitoring communication channels to identify when employees desire to trade a shift or otherwise find a shift substitute (see par. 0021), but Fedak does not explicitly teach:
else, if two corresponding queued schedule trade requests are not identified: identifying a set of cyclic queued schedule trade requests;
else, if a set of cyclic queued schedule trade requests are not identified: repeating the step of periodically checking; and
automatically approving or rejecting the identified schedule trade requests based on one or more approval criteria, wherein each of the identified schedule trade requests comprises a desired target shift and a shift to be traded, and wherein the desired target shift of each identified schedule trade request corresponds to the shift to be traded of a different identified schedule trade request.
However Taheri teaches:
else, if two corresponding queued schedule trade requests are not identified: identifying a set of cyclic queued schedule trade requests; and else, if a set of cyclic queued schedule trade requests are not identified: repeating the step of periodically checking (Taheri, [0122]), “the system may, for each candidate in the set determined at Step 1020, determine shift history information for the particular candidate… whether the particular candidate has a currently pending request to swap a shift that may be satisfied by the offered unfilled shift; and/or (i) any other suitable candidate shift history information”; (Taheri, [0130]), “If, at Step 1140, no candidate has accepted an offer to fill the unfilled shift (e.g., no acceptance received after a preconfigured period of time), the system may determine, at Step 1150, whether there are remaining candidates in the set of one or more candidates for which shift acceptance likelihood scores have been determined for the particular unfilled shift”; (Taheri, [0099]), “the system 100 may be configured to allow the first user to put a time limit on the swap request that allows the request to be active for a certain period of time. In this way, if the second user does not respond to the swap request in a timely manner, the first user can send a new swap request to a different provider (e.g., a third user) all without having to manually track down the second user”; (Taheri, [0128]), “the system may offer the particular unfilled shift to a first subset of the set of candidates having the highest overall shift acceptance likelihood scores”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the trade shift monitoring in Fedak to include the schedule trade request limitations as taught by Taheri. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of identifying an intent to request a shift trade or substitution and when someone else accepts the trade or agrees to be the substitute in Fedak (see par. 0010) to efficiently include the results of a quick and efficient method of automating the swapping of work shifts between users (see Taheri par. 0096).
Fedak teaches monitoring communication channels to identify when employees desire to trade a shift or otherwise find a shift substitute (see par. 0021), but Fedak does not explicitly teach:
automatically approving or rejecting the identified schedule trade requests based on one or more approval criteria, wherein each of the identified schedule trade requests comprises a desired target shift and a shift to be traded, and wherein the desired target shift of each identified schedule trade request corresponds to the shift to be traded of a different identified schedule trade request.
However O’Brien teaches:
automatically approving or rejecting the identified schedule trade requests based on one or more approval criteria, wherein each of the identified schedule trade requests comprises a desired target shift and a shift to be traded, and wherein the desired target shift of each identified schedule trade request corresponds to the shift to be traded of a different identified schedule trade request (O’Brien, [col. 8, ln. 57]-[col. 9, ln. 4]), “Another way in which the system can accommodate employee preferences is shift swapping 570. An employee may enter a request to swap shifts with another employee. The other employee enters a corresponding swap request. When the host encounters a swap request while generating the schedule, it confirms that there is a corresponding swap request before revising the schedule. In addition the host verifies that the effect of the swap is consistent with the scheduling requirements. When the scheduling engine 148 is next initiated, a revised schedule can be readily generated reflecting the swap request. Both employees receive notices of the swap and all employees can view the revised schedule”; (O’Brien, [col. 3, ln. 28-31]), “The host server receives information from managers 130, employees 120 and extrinsic sources 140 and processes the information so as to maintain and update a schedule”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the trade shift monitoring in Fedak to include the shift-trade request and automated decision limitations as taught by O’Brien. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of identifying an intent to request a shift trade or substitution and when someone else accepts the trade or agrees to be the substitute in Fedak (see par. 0010) to efficiently include the results of generating an optimal schedule within the constraints of retrieved data by assigning employees to each shift in the schedule template applying the business parameters and rule base to resolve any conflicts or make any selections from a range (see O’Brien col. 4, ln. 54-58).
Referring to Claim 3, Fedak in view of Taheri in view of O’Brien teaches the method of claim 1. Fedak further teaches:
wherein the approval criteria comprises a check that the trade request relates to at least one of: a tradeable activity; two or more agents in a same scheduling unit; and two or more agents with a same skill (Fedak, [0022]), “The data processing activities may include verifying the requesting employee is actually scheduled for a shift when a substitute is requested… The data processing activities associated with that rule may first verify that the poster is in fact an employee and not otherwise scheduled for a shift at the same time based on data processing interactions with the scheduling system 120”.
Referring to Claim 7, Fedak in view of Taheri in view of O’Brien teaches the method of claim 1. Fedak teaches when the shift trade is accepted by another user in the forum, the bot reassigns the shift in the labor management system (see par. 0011), but Fedak does not explicitly teach:
comprising sending an approval notification to a set of agents who are the subject of an approved schedule trade request.
However Taheri teaches:
comprising sending an approval notification to a set of agents who are the subject of an approved schedule trade request (Taheri, [0132]), “In response to the shift being accepted, the system may notify a user that the shift has been filled (e.g., by presenting an indication on a graphical user interface)”; (Taheri, [0098]), “once the second user selects the work shift 730 that they are willing to swap for the work shift that was requested by the first user, the second user can select a “send confirmation” menu item 732 on user interface 702 to send a swap confirmation back to the first user”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shift trade monitoring in Fedak to include the queue limitations as taught by Narasimhan. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of identifying an intent to request a shift trade or substitution and when someone else accepts the trade or agrees to be the substitute in Fedak (see par. 0010) to efficiently include the results of real-time adjustments to rosters (see Narasimhan par. 007).
Referring to Claim 11, Fedak teaches:
A system for digital scheduling, the system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory containing instructions which (Fedak, [0005]; [0017]), when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to:
Claim 11 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 1, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 13 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 3, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 17 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 7, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fedak, U.S. Publication No. 2018/0096285 [hereinafter Fedak], in view of Taheri et al., U.S. Publication No. 2021/0407658 [hereinafter Taheri], in view of O’Brien, U.S. Patent No. 6,587,831 [hereinafter O’Brien], and further in view of Narasimhan et al., U.S. Publication No. 2005/0096962 [hereinafter Narasimhan].
Referring to Claim 2, Fedak in view of Taheri in view of O’Brien teaches the method of claim 1. Fedak teaches monitoring communication channels to identify when employees desire to trade a shift or otherwise find a shift substitute (see par. 0021), but Fedak does not explicitly teach:
further comprising: periodically checking the data storage for new schedules; and identifying the two corresponding queued schedule trade requests or the set of cyclic queued schedule trade requests based on the new schedules.
However Narasimhan teaches:
further comprising: periodically checking the data storage for new schedules; and identifying the two corresponding queued schedule trade requests or the set of cyclic queued schedule trade requests based on the new schedules (Narasimhan, [0031]), “The work rosters can be distributed and, using a bidding module, workers can bid on available shifts, trade shifts, and/or otherwise seek to customize their work schedules”; (Narasimhan, [0053]), “bids can be awarded/assigned by bid rank 514 and by the prioritized order of a worker's bids 508. When bidding processor 502 receives bids from a worker, it can determine 618 if bids from workers having higher bid ranks 514 remain to be received. If bids remain to be received, bidding processor 502 can await 620 further bids. If no bids from workers having higher bid ranks remain to be received, the worker can be awarded/assigned 622 the bid line corresponding to the highest prioritized bid line of those bid lines available to the worker…”; (Narasimhan, [0033]; [0043]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shift trade monitoring in Fedak to include the new schedules limitations as taught by Narasimhan. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of identifying an intent to request a shift trade or substitution and when someone else accepts the trade or agrees to be the substitute in Fedak (see par. 0010) to efficiently include the results of real-time adjustments to rosters (see Narasimhan par. 007).
Referring to Claim 5, Fedak in view of Taheri in view of O’Brien teaches the method of claim 1. Fedak teaches confirming of the shift trade (see par. 0012), but Fedak does not explicitly teach:
wherein a queued schedule trade request remains queued until it is approved, rejected, or a predetermined period of time elapses.
However Narasimhan teaches:
wherein a queued schedule trade request remains queued until it is approved, rejected, or a predetermined period of time elapses (Narasimhan, [0044]), “Once a shift is assigned, it is no longer available (e.g., removed from the ordered list)”; (Narasimhan, [0058]), “Prior to displaying the updated listings, the illustrated method 600 can determine 670 if a predetermined deadline for trading is exceeded. For those shifts wherein the deadline is exceeded, trading will be closed, and the closed status will be reflected in the listing. Trading for other shifts can continue”; (Narasimhan, [0045]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shift trade confirmation in Fedak to include the queue limitations as taught by Narasimhan. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of identifying an intent to request a shift trade or substitution and when someone else accepts the trade or agrees to be the substitute in Fedak (see par. 0010) to efficiently include the results of real-time adjustments to rosters (see Narasimhan par. 007).
Referring to Claim 6, the combination of Fedak in view of Taheri in view of O’Brien in view of Narasimhan teaches the method of claim 5. Fedak teaches monitoring communication channels to identify when employees desire to trade a shift or otherwise find a shift substitute (see par. 0021), but Fedak does not explicitly teach:
wherein the predetermined period of time expires at the date or time which is the subject of the queued schedule trade request.
However Narasimhan teaches:
wherein the predetermined period of time expires at the date or time which is the subject of the queued schedule trade request (Narasimhan, [0058]), “The negotiations can take the form of a series of responses, e.g., offers and counter-offers, between the two workers. Prior to displaying the updated listings, the illustrated method 600 can determine 670 if a predetermined deadline for trading is exceeded. For those shifts wherein the deadline is exceeded, trading will be closed, and the closed status will be reflected in the listing. Trading for other shifts can continue”; (Narasimhan, [0054]), “The listing can be restricted to those shift trades currently available to the worker. For example, trading deadlines…”
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shift trade confirmation in Fedak to include the queue limitations as taught by Narasimhan. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of identifying an intent to request a shift trade or substitution and when someone else accepts the trade or agrees to be the substitute in Fedak (see par. 0010) to efficiently include the results of real-time adjustments to rosters (see Narasimhan par. 007).
Claim 12 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 2, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 15 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 5, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claim 16 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 6, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fedak, U.S. Publication No. 2018/0096285 [hereinafter Fedak], in view of Taheri et al., U.S. Publication No. 2021/0407658 [hereinafter Taheri], in view of O’Brien, U.S. Patent No. 6,587,831 [hereinafter O’Brien], and further in view of Cox et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,788,308 [hereinafter Cox].
Referring to Claim 4, Fedak in view of Taheri in view of O’Brien teaches the method of claim 1. Fedak teaches monitoring communication channels to identify when employees desire to trade a shift or otherwise find a shift substitute (see par. 0021), but Fedak does not explicitly teach:
where a schedule trade request submitted by an agent is queued if the schedule trade request relates to a date or time that is not currently available to be traded.
However Cox teaches:
where a schedule trade request submitted by an agent is queued if the schedule trade request relates to a date or time that is not currently available to be traded (Cox, [col. 11, ln. 43-50]), “Each shift change request is sent to an available shift pool or bulletin board that stores posts from individuals requesting shift trades. Each entry in the shift pool may include information such as proposed shift change request, date posted, need to switch before date, or other relevant information. Using the request shift trade sub-routine 408, employees may view the entries in shift change requests pool and sign-up to work the shift or trade shifts”; (Cox, [col. 18, ln. 44-46]), “After the employee accepts the shift, the system updates the schedule data in the database, block 676, to remove the shift trade request from the pool of posted shifts”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shift trade monitoring in Fedak to include the queue limitations as taught by Cox. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of identifying an intent to request a shift trade or substitution and when someone else accepts the trade or agrees to be the substitute in Fedak (see par. 0010) to efficiently include the results of managing the work schedules of a plurality of employees (see Cox col. 1, ln. 8-9).
Claim 14 disclose substantially the same subject matter as claim 4, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fedak, U.S. Publication No. 2018/0096285 [hereinafter Fedak], and further in view of O’Brien, U.S. Patent No. 6,587,831 [hereinafter O’Brien].
Referring to Claim 8, Fedak teaches:
A method for digital scheduling, the method comprising, using a computer processor:
identifying a subset of corresponding shift-trade requests in a set of queued shift-trade requests (Fedak, [0010]), “a bot that listens to one or more social network communication channels for textual postings that indicate an intent to request a shift trade or substitute and an intent to accept the trade or to be the substitute… A shift management system may then be updated in some embodiments to keep data in the shift management system up to date when the bot identifies an intent to request a shift trade or substitution”; (Fedak, [0011]), “a “bot” or other software element… The bots are deployed by the employer, either directly or indirectly through a cloud service provider, to listen in on the traffic on such channels. When the bot detects that someone is trying to trade a shift, the bot may connect to the appropriate labor management system and mark the shift as being offered for trade or substitution”; (Fedak, [0021]-[0022]), “… A bot may identify a posting to a social media platform…The data processing activities may further include recording the substitute request with the scheduling system 120”; (Fedak, [0027]; [0005]; [0017]); and
outputting a notification of the approval or rejection thereof (Fedak, [0022]), “…, the offer to fill the shift may be automatically approved and the rescheduling occurs. This rescheduling may include updating the scheduling system 120, updating one or more channels on one more of the social media platforms 102, 106, and sending other messages such as text messages, direct messages within one or more of the social media 102, 106 platforms, and the like”; (Fedak [0028]), “upon successfully updating the assignment management system for the second person to be the substitute, the method 300 includes adding a new textual posting to the social media platform indicating the request of the assignment substitute has been filled”.
Fedak teaches monitoring communication channels to identify when employees desire to trade a shift or otherwise find a shift substitute (see par. 0021), but Fedak does not explicitly teach:
wherein each shift-trade request in the subset of corresponding shift-trade requests comprises a desired target shift and a shift to be traded, and wherein the desired target shift of each shift-trade request in the subset of corresponding shift-trade requests corresponds to the shift to be traded of a different shift-trade request within the subset; and automatically approving or rejecting the identified subset of corresponding shift-trade requests according to a set of approval criteria.
However O’Brien teaches:
wherein each shift-trade request in the subset of corresponding shift-trade requests comprises a desired target shift and a shift to be traded, and wherein the desired target shift of each shift-trade request in the subset of corresponding shift-trade requests corresponds to the shift to be traded of a different shift-trade request within the subset; and automatically approving or rejecting the identified subset of corresponding shift-trade requests according to a set of approval criteria (O’Brien, [col. 8, ln. 57]-[col. 9, ln. 4]), “Another way in which the system can accommodate employee preferences is shift swapping 570. An employee may enter a request to swap shifts with another employee. The other employee enters a corresponding swap request. When the host encounters a swap request while generating the schedule, it confirms that there is a corresponding swap request before revising the schedule. In addition the host verifies that the effect of the swap is consistent with the scheduling requirements. When the scheduling engine 148 is next initiated, a revised schedule can be readily generated reflecting the swap request. Both employees receive notices of the swap and all employees can view the revised schedule”; (O’Brien, [col. 3, ln. 28-31]), “The host server receives information from managers 130, employees 120 and extrinsic sources 140 and processes the information so as to maintain and update a schedule”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the trade shift monitoring in Fedak to include the shift-trade request and automated decision limitations as taught by O’Brien. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of identifying an intent to request a shift trade or substitution and when someone else accepts the trade or agrees to be the substitute in Fedak (see par. 0010) to efficiently include the results of generating an optimal schedule within the constraints of retrieved data by assigning employees to each shift in the schedule template applying the business parameters and rule base to resolve any conflicts or make any selections from a range (see O’Brien col. 4, ln. 54-58).
Referring to Claim 9, Fedak in view of O’Brien teaches the method of claim 8. Fedak further teaches:
further comprising outputting an updated schedule for an approved shift-trade request (Fedak, [0022]), “This rescheduling may include updating the scheduling system 120, updating one or more channels on one more of the social media platforms 102, 106, and sending other messages such as text messages, direct messages within one or more of the social media 102, 106 platforms, and the like”; (Fedak, [0010]; [0028]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fedak, U.S. Publication No. 2018/0096285 [hereinafter Fedak], in view of O’Brien, U.S. Patent No. 6,587,831 [hereinafter O’Brien], and further in view of Cox et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,788,308 [hereinafter Cox].
Referring to Claim 10, Fedak in view of O’Brien teaches the method of claim 8. Fedak teaches monitoring communication channels to identify when employees desire to trade a shift or otherwise find a shift substitute (see par. 0021), but Fedak does not explicitly teach:
wherein a shift-trade request is a queued shift-trade request if at the time an agent submitted the shift-trade request the shift did not exist to be traded.
However Cox teaches:
wherein a shift-trade request is a queued shift-trade request if at the time an agent submitted the shift-trade request the shift did not exist to be traded (Cox, [col. 11, ln. 43-50]), “Each shift change request is sent to an available shift pool or bulletin board that stores posts from individuals requesting shift trades. Each entry in the shift pool may include information such as proposed shift change request, date posted, need to switch before date, or other relevant information. Using the request shift trade sub-routine 408, employees may view the entries in shift change requests pool and sign-up to work the shift or trade shifts”; (Cox, [col. 18, ln. 44-46]), “After the employee accepts the shift, the system updates the schedule data in the database, block 676, to remove the shift trade request from the pool of posted shifts”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shift trade monitoring in Fedak to include the queue limitations as taught by Cox. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of identifying an intent to request a shift trade or substitution and when someone else accepts the trade or agrees to be the substitute in Fedak (see par. 0010) to efficiently include the results of managing the work schedules of a plurality of employees (see Cox col. 1, ln. 8-9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jeong et al. (US 20050177407 A1) – The present disclosure generally relates to computerized systems and methods for improved shift scheduling. In particular, embodiments of the present disclosure relate to inventive and unconventional systems allowing for exchange of leaves among individual delivery workers.
Fama et al. (US 20080002823 A1) – Alert rules specify events that generate alerts to specific users or targets when unusual events occur, such as an agent going out of adherence, a key performance indicator going out of range, or an employee schedule changes. Processing rule objects describe how Schedule Modification Request objects are approved or denied. Rule can be created to automatically approve the agent requests, automatically deny the requests, or flag the requests for manual approval. Two examples of Processing rules are: Time Off requests will be automatically denied if they are less then 2 weeks prior to the requested date; Shift Swaps will be automatically approved if the 2 agents have identical skills.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Patty 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.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624