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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 18, 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 18/470,087, filed on September 19, 2023. In response to Examiner's Final Office Action dated January 16, 2026, Applicant on April 17, 2026, amended claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14 and 15. 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The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1-17 are hereby withdrawn in light of Applicants amendments and argument to claims 1, 8 and 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed April 17, 2026 (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 April 17, 2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant submit as amended, independent claims 1, 8, and 11 require automated identification of multi-party cyclic dependencies among queued shift-trade requests. The limitation requiring that each request's desired target shift corresponds to the shift to be traded of a single, unique, and different request defines a closed dependency cycle that is inherently computational and not practically performable by the human mind or with pen and paper.
As illustrated in Figure 3 and described in paragraphs [0050]-[0051], the claimed cyclic trade involves three or more agents whose requests can only be resolved through automated detection of a cycle, a capability explicitly stated to be "not present in existing WFM systems.".
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds Applicant is attempting to say the Step 2A-Prong One elements, the abstract idea, is what makes the claim eligible. Applicant’s abovementioned remarks are not technological in nature and merely confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use; see MPEP 2106.05(h). Examiner notes 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). 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 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), 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 claims recite and abstract idea.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states independent claims 1 and 8 explicitly recite execution at a server executing a scheduling system, including receipt of shift-trade requests, identification of cyclic subsets, and output of approval or rejection notifications. Independent claim 11 recites a corresponding system configuration.
The amended claims are therefore analogous to the patent-eligible claims in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., where automated rules improved a technological process without human intermediation, and are consistent with RCT v. Microsoft, Diamond v. Diehr, and SiRF Technology v. ITC, each of which involved improvements to technological systems rather than automation of abstract ideas.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes McRO, demonstrated 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 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) and not to a technology, technological field or computer-related technology. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant, regardless of the complexity and/or granularity, limitations directed to data analysis (i.e., cyclic trade logic) without meaningful limitations within the claims that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself is a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea). Merely confining the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not establish a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. “A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit.” In re Mohapatra, 842 F. App’x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant amended claims do not merely recite receiving, storing, or transmitting data. Instead, they recite a specific ordered combination of server-executed operations that automatically resolve multi-party cyclic shift-trade configurations, a functionality not present in prior workforce management systems.
Accordingly, the amended claims are distinguishable from FairWarning, Credit Acceptance, LendingTree, Versata, and TLI Communications, which involved generic automation or data handling using conventional computer components.
Further, the dependent claims further limit the patent-eligible independent claims and recite tangible system outputs that reflect practical application of the claimed technological improvements. Accordingly, the dependent claims are patent-eligible for at least the same reasons.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-17, as amended, are not directed to an abstract idea and, even if they were, integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and amount to significantly more under the Alice/Mayo framework.
Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-17.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) was found eligible based on considerations relevant to Part 2B; where claim 1 "carve[s] out a specific location for the filtering system (a remote ISP server) and require the filtering system to give users the ability to customize filtering for their individual network accounts". In contrast, the amended claims do not recite similar features. Examiner finds Applicant’s claim is not analogous to the network customization in BASCOM and the additional elements recited in the claims do not perform any unconventional functions, individually or in combination, that can be considered “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Applicant has not identified any disclosure in the claimed invention showing and/or submitting that the technology used is being improved, there was a technical problem with the technology that the claimed invention solves, or the ordered combinations of the known elements is significantly more than instructions used to manage cyclic queued schedule trade requests. Applicant has not presented an argument or identified any disclosure that would alter this analysis. For at least these reasons, the pending claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 managing cyclic queued schedule trade requests.
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 comprising more than two corresponding schedule trade requests; else, if a set of cyclic queued schedule trade requests comprising more than two corresponding 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 single, unique, and 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 server comprising a computer processor and executing a scheduling system do 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 cyclic subset of more than two corresponding shift-trade requests in a set of queued shift-trade requests, wherein each shift-trade request in the cyclic subset of more than two corresponding shift-trade requests comprises a desired target shift and a shift to be traded, and wherein the desired target shift of each respective shift-trade request in the cyclic subset of more than two corresponding shift-trade requests corresponds to the shift to be traded of a single, unique, and different shift-trade request within the subset; automatically approving or rejecting the identified cyclic subset of more than two corresponding shift-trade requests according to a set of approval criteria 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 server comprising a computer processor and executing a scheduling system and agent terminals do 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 server comprising a computer processor and executing a scheduling system 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 and executing a scheduling system and agent terminals 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.
Claim 8 further recites wherein each shift-trade request in the set of queued shift-trade requests has been input to a respective agent terminal and sent to the server; and outputting a notification of the approval or rejection thereof to at least one of the agent terminals, which are limitations considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g) and also does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
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 executing a scheduling system, agent terminals, 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.
Distinguishable Over the Prior Art
The prior art rejections of the amended claims are removed in light of Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed April 17, 2026, in particular pg. 12-14 regarding the prior art of record. Examiner analyzed amended claim 1 in view of the prior art on record and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine references with a reasonable expectation of success.
Dilda et al. (WO 2013149316 A1) teaches a system and method to automatically schedule a workforce. The method allow workers to trade shifts amongst themselves with or without requiring approval from a schedule administrator (see Abstract). Specifically Dilda discloses a worker can post a shift for trade. If shift posting (trading) is allowed, the shift trading module sends to the worker who has posted the shift (the poster), a list of recipients (workers) who are nominally available to work the shift. The poster can select all the nominally available recipients or only some of the nominally available recipients on the list. In this example, nominally available recipients (workers) can be recipients who are scheduled to work another shift in the schedule and with whom the poster would like to trade (see par. 0083). The selected recipients can propose one of their own shifts (a trade shift) to trade for the posted shift. The trade shifts, and any related conflicts, are subsequently displayed to the poster who can accept or not, one of the proposed trade shifts through any of his aforementioned devices, regardless of whether or not the poster has a conflict with the trade shift (see par. 0084).
However, Dilda, individually or in combination with the prior art of record, does not explicitly teach the combination of claim limitations as recited in independent claim 1. Thus, claim 1 is found to be distinguishable over the prior art. Claims 8 and 11 are distinguishable over the prior art for similar reasons as cited for claim 1. Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 10 and 12-17 are distinguishable because they depend on claims 1, 8 and 11 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tewari et al. (US 20080082387 A1) – Systems and methods of partial shift swapping are disclosed. An exemplary method comprises: receiving a partial shift swap request to swap a portion of a shift; and updating a schedule to reflect the partial shift swap request. The request is to swap a portion of the shift from an offering agent to an accepting agent. The shift has a date and at least one time range indicating the portion of the shift time range to be re-assigned to the accepting agent.
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
Prosecution Insights