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 . 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.
DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to communication filed on 6/23/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 10, 18 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently under examination and have been rejected as follows.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 101 will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in view of the amendments.
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 103 were previously withdrawn in view of the amendments and Applicant’s arguments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 101:
Step 2A Prong 1:
Applicant argues on page 11 of remarks 6/23/2026:
“The amended independent claims are directed to a specific improvement in the way a computer system structures and solves a MIP scheduling problem, rather than to an abstract idea
as such….
“These limitations recite how the system accomplishes the asserted technical improvement, not merely the desired result of faster scheduling.
“The Examiner previously reasoned that the claims appeared to improve only an optimization algorithm and not computer technology itself. The present amendments directly address that concern by reciting the solver-level data structure and memory-resident matrix architecture that cause the improvement: the system avoids instantiating pairwise open/close variables, constructs a sparse constraint matrix, and reduces variables, constraints, and non-zero coefficients from θ(TxW2) to θ(TxW). That is a concrete improvement in the computer system's computational workload, memory footprint, and solver input matrix, rather than an improvement only to a business practice.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Despite the alleged computer system improvement by Applicant, the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis focuses on the presence of an abstract idea. Collecting labor parameters, determining contract types, determining a number of contracts needed, and creating and communicating a schedule fall within agreements in the form of contracts or legal obligations, and scheduling labor to account for attrition and efficiency is an enterprise level method of mitigating financial risk. The independent claims also include mixed integer programming and a greedy algorithm - mathematical optimization techniques which fall under the Mathematic Concepts abstract grouping. That said, Examiner stipulates an algorithmic improvement in efficiency, but insufficient detail regarding technological improvement via additional elements are present in the claims. The claims are directed to solving a scheduling optimization problem and merely use a computer to improve the performance of that optimization (speed, iterations, resources used) as opposed to the performance of the computer itself.
Applicant argues beginning on page 11 of remarks 6/23/2026:
“Federal Circuit precedent confirms that claims focused on improving the operation of a computer or computer-implemented process are not abstract merely because they use mathematical relationships or rules…. Here, as in Enfish, the claims are directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality because they define a particular data structure and constraint representation that reduces the size and density of the problem solved by the computer. The claims are also analogous to McRO…, because they recite specific rules that constrain and improve an automated process rather than broadly preempting all ways of generating schedules.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Though Examiner sees the similarity with Enfish, the mere improvement in computational speed by reducing algorithmic complexity falls short of Enfish’s improvement to the operation of the computer itself, including a self-referential model for more effective storage of images and unstructured text, on-the-fly configuration, and indexing technique for faster searching of data regardless of computational resources. Examiner submits the invention in McRO allowed computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters that previously required human animation (see p. 22 of McRO v. Bandai federal appeal decision). In other words, the invention automated a human manual process as opposed to improving the performance and accuracy of an existing automated process. Claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not necessarily integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Applicant argues on page 12 of remarks 6/23/2026:
“Nor are the amended claims directed to a mental process. The claimed operations require
constructing a sparse MIP constraint matrix, maintaining cumulative forward total variables, solving a MIP scenario, and reducing variables, constraints, and non-zeros as a function of T contract types and W weeks. Those operations are not practically performed in the human mind,
and the specification explains that traditional approaches require so many calculations that long term planning over short update intervals was previously incapable and/or impractical.”
Examiner respectfully finds the argument unpersuasive. Examiner made no conclusion about the claims reciting, describing, or setting forth a mental process, but submitted they recited, described or set for abstract ideas under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mathematical Concepts abstract groupings.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Applicant argues beginning on page 12 of remarks 6/23/2026:
“The claimed practical application is supported by the specification's disclosure that remote client computing devices may transmit labor system input parameters to one or more servers over a network, the servers may generate a contract schedule, and the remote client computing device may interpret the schedule and automatically generate or terminate a contract. (pars. 24 and 25) The practical application is also supported by the disclosure that the schedule includes openings and closings of new or existing contracts and may be a machine-usable plan for opening and closing contracts over a specified time period (par. 31)….
“…As amended, the claims recite more than generic collection and presentation: they require a sparse constraint matrix constructed in memory, cumulative opening and closing totals, total inequality constraints tied to minimum and maximum contract lengths, non-enumeration of pairwise variables, and chronological greedy expansion of the solved opening and closing counts. These limitations meaningfully limit the claims to a particular technological implementation and therefore integrate any mathematical concept into a practical application.”
Examiner respectfully finds the argument unpersuasive. Examiner submits the claim limitations and specification details quoted above including a sparse constraint matrix, cumulative totals, total inequality constraints tied to contract lengths, non-enumeration of pairwise variables, are still directed to the abstract mathematical concepts rather than additional computer based elements necessary to demonstrate practical application.
Applicant argues on page 13 of remarks 6/23/2026:
“The Examiner also reasoned that increased speed or efficiency from applying an abstract
idea on a computer does not necessarily establish eligibility. Applicant agrees with that general proposition but respectfully submits that it does not apply here because the claims do not merely say "do it faster." The claims recite the structural mechanism that causes the computational improvement: eliminating pairwise contract-instance selection variables, constructing a sparse matrix, using cumulative totals and total inequalities, and applying chronological greedy assignment to expand solved counts into concrete contract instances. The claimed mechanism is comparable to eligible claims that improve a computer implemented process by altering how data is generated, stored, or processed. See Koninklijke KPN NV v. GemaltoM2MGmbH, 942 F.3d 1143, 1150-51 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Here, the claimed sparse MIP matrix and non-enumerative opening/closing representation alter how the computer stores and processes the solver problem, thereby reducing the number of variables, constraints, and non-zero coefficients that must be stored and solved.
Examiner respectfully finds the argument unpersuasive. According to Koninklijke, “the ’662 patent solves [the] problem by varying the way check data is generated by varying the permutation applied to different data blocks. Varying the permutation for each data block reduces the chances that the same systematic error will produce the same defective check data across different data blocks… the appealed claims represent a non-abstract improvement in the functionality of an existing technological process and not simply an abstract idea of manipulating data.” This bridging of improvement to the abstract idea across to improvement of the technological process itself remains analogously unclear in the present claims or specification.
Step 2B:
Applicant argues on page 14 of remarks 6/23/2026:
“Under BASCOM… an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known components. The amended claims recite such an arrangement because the computer system does not merely use a known MIP solver; it feeds the solver a specially structured sparse matrix generated from opening-count and closing-count variables, cumulative totals, and total inequalities, and it then expands the solved counts through chronological greedy assignment.
“The Office Action cited the specification's discussion of general computer components as
evidence that computer-based elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. But the
inventive concept is not the mere presence of processors, servers, memory, or networks in isolation. The inventive concept is the ordered computer-solver arrangement that reduces the MIP' s variables, constraints, and non-zero coefficients by replacing pairwise enumeration with
opening/closing variables, total inequalities, and chronological greedy expansion.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as amended do not include any more additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because per above, the additional computer-based elements merely apply the already recited abstract idea and link use of abstract idea (workforce optimization algorithm) to a field of use or technological environment (workforce management system), per MPEP 2106.05 (h). Specifically, Examiner follows the guidelines of MPEP 2106.05(d) II 2nd bullet point and caries over the analysis and conclusions reached on the MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) tests to Step 2B, and submits that for the same reasons as articulated above, said computer-based additional elements also do not provide significantly more when considering MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or (h) as sufficient option(s) of evidence, without the need to rely on the well-understood, routine and conventional test. However, in arguendo, further evidence would be required to demonstrate conventionality of the additional, computer-based elements, Examiner would further rely on MPEP 2106.05(d) guidelines to demonstrate that said additional elements are also well-understood, routine, conventional. In such case, Examiner would rely as evidence on Applicant specification ¶ [0164]-[0168] describing well known computer-based elements such as processors, circuits, networks, general-purpose computers, mobile devices, virtual machines, etc. comprising the embodiments.
Examiner submits the asserted architectural changes recited in the claims as amended are to an optimization algorithm, specifically the integration of a greedy algorithm, inequality constraints, and an MIP scenario keyed to opening and closing decision variables. The improvements claimed appear to be focused on improving upon existing algorithms/models, specifically the “traditional Enumeration Approach” (Applicant specification ¶ [0002] among others) as opposed to improvement in computer technology itself. Merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea (see 2019 Revised Guidance at 55. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2019), an invention which makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer, thus falling short of a technical solution to a technical problem).
Accordingly, the previously pending rejections under 35 USC 101 will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in view of the amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 103:
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn in view of the amendments and Applicant’s arguments. Applicant’s arguments pages 14-18, filed 1/5/2026, with respect to the art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive; the rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn. No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable subject matter over the prior art” section found below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-9 are directed to a method or process which is a statutory category.
Claims 10-17 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium or article of manufacture which is a statutory category.
Claims 18-20 are directed to an apparatus or machine which is a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One: The claims recite, describe, or set forth a judicial exception of an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Specifically, the claims recite, describe or set forth commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts or legal obligations) including: “receiving… interpreting… one or more labor system input parameters”, “determining… based at least in part on the one or more labor system input parameters and a labor contract planning model, a plurality of implicit concrete contract type values defined by opening and closing decision variables [which] comprise, for each of a plurality of contract types and for each week of a planning period, opening-count variables and closing-count variables…without instantiating a pairwise contract-instance selection variable for each possible opening-week and closing-week pairing”, “determining… a number of contracts corresponding to the implicit concrete contract type value”, “generating… a contract schedule that includes: a plurality of number-of-open-contracts to date pairings representing openings of new contracts within a planning period, and a plurality of number-of-closed-contracts to date pairings representing closings of at least one of the new contracts or existing contracts within the planning period”, and “transmitting… the contract schedule”, “present the contract schedule and… generate and/or terminate the one or more contracts in the contract schedule”. Further, the claims recite, describe, or set forth mitigating risk, including: “productive hours are calculated based on attrition rate and efficiency factors associated with the contracts”.
Further still, the claims recite, describe, or set forth mathematical concepts, including “formulating a mixed-integer programming (MIP) scenario using total inequality constraints for the opening and closing decision variables and performing a chronological greedy assignment of a first unassigned opened contract to a first unassigned closed contract”, “wherein constructing the sparse constraint matrix comprises maintaining cumulative forward opening-total variables and cumulative forward closing-total variables for each contract type and each week and adding, for each contract type, total inequality constraints that require opened contracts to be closable within a minimum contract length and a maximum contract length and require closed contracts to correspond to previously opened contracts, and wherein solving the MIP scenario produces the opening-count variables and the closing-count variables without enumerating all possible opening-week and closing-week pairings”, “wherein the use of the total inequality constraints and the chronological greedy assignment reduces a computational complexity of the generating from θ(T×W2) to θ(T×W) in terms of variables, constraints, and non-zeros, wherein T is a number of different contract types and W is a length of a planning period”, “wherein the contract schedule comprises… date-pairing data generated from the opening-count variables and the closing-count variables after the chronological greedy assignment pairs a kth unassigned opened contract with a kth unassigned closed contract up to a last closing within the planning period”.
Collecting labor parameters, determining contract types, determining a number of contracts needed, and creating and communicating a schedule fall within agreements in the form of contracts or legal obligations, which are commercial or legal interactions; and scheduling labor to account for attrition and efficiency falls within mitigating risk as it pertains to fundamental economic principles; each under the larger abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II). Furthermore, formulating a mixed integer programming scenario with constraints, decision variables, and greedy algorithm falls within the abstract grouping of Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Independent claims 1, 10, 18 recite the following additional elements: “server”, “processor”, “memory device”, “labor parameter circuit”, “contract type identifier circuit”, “contract scheduling circuit”, “schedule provisioning circuit”, “computing device”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions”, and “apparatus”. The capabilities of these additional elements include interpreting input parameters, determining contract types and number of contracts, formulating a mixed-integer programming scenario, performing a greedy algorithm, generating a contract schedule, calculating production hours based on attrition and efficiency, and transmitting the schedule. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of collecting, calculating, organizing, processing, and presenting data, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, these functions can be viewed as not meaningfully different than a business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i). The claims are directed to an abstract idea and the judicial exception does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: According to MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), considering whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite the technological details of how the actual technological solution to the actual technological problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover an entrepreneurial and thus abstract solution to an entrepreneurial problem with no technological details on how the technological result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, 19-20 do not appear to provide any more additional computer-based elements, let alone for such additional computer-based elements to integrate the abstract idea into practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B). Further, dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, 19-20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited in claims 1, 10, 18 along with further narrowing of the abstract idea of claims 1, 10, 18 along with their execution of the abstract idea. Specifically, dependent claims narrow the “labor parameter circuit”, “contract type identifier circuit”, “contract scheduling circuit”, “schedule provisioning circuit”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions”, “processor”, and “apparatus” to capabilities such as determine, correspond to, comprise, generate, and solve various forms of data such as contract types, event dates, contract agreements, supply and demand, PTO policies, schedules, PTO formulas, MIP scenarios, etc. which, when evaluated per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) represent mere invocation of computers to perform existing processes. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually and in combination fail to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) and for the same reasons they also fail to provide significantly more (Step 2B). Thus, claims 1-20 are reasoned to be patent ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowable subject matter over the prior art
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art in light of the amendments. However, these claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
The closest prior art to the invention includes Sager et al. US 20220292433 A1, System and method of schedule optimization for long-range staff-planning; Anderson US 20200167717 A1, Systems and methods for outputting resource allocation records; Seetharaman et al. US 20070061183 A1, Systems and methods for performing long-term simulation; Putcha et al. US 20190295204 A1, Systems and methods for transportation staffing; and Vanamala US 20170116577 A1, Method and system for management of human resource scheduling rules and programs. None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach or suggest the claimed invention as detailed in the independent claims, specifically:
“wherein the use of the total inequality constraints and the chronological greedy assignment reduces a computational complexity of the generating from θ(T×W2) to θ(T×W) in terms of variables, constraints, and non-zeros, wherein T is a number of different contract types and W is a length of a planning period”.
The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Examiner reminds Applicant that novelty (35 USC 102) and non-obviousness (35 USC 103) still pertain to features that are mostly abstract that do not render the claims patent eligible (35 USC 101). The novel and non-obviousness rationale above do not necessarily render the claims patent eligible. See for example MPEP 2106.04 I ¶5, 3rd sentence citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 "the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Laperi; Erian et al. US 20070179829 A1, Method and apparatus for workflow scheduling and forecasting.
Sotozaki; Yui US 20150262104 A1, Resource planning method and system.
An; Lianjun et al. US 20090182598 A1, Method and system for planning of services workforce staffing using hiring, contracting and cross-training.
Moran; Brian K. et al. US 20210319390 A1, Labor management software system.
Anderson; Matthew W. et al. US 20210049530 A1, System with capacity and resource allocation display to facilitate update of electronic record information.
Dar Mousa; Nosaiba et al. US 20200175456 A1, Cognitive framework for dynamic employee/resource allocation in a manufacturing environment.
Aykin; Turgut US 7725339 B1, Contact center scheduling using integer programming.
Vasnani; Kanchan et al. US 20250094933 A1, System and method of digital schedule processing.
Dommarajukrishnamaraju, Nagaraju AU 2021107096 A4, System and method for change order management in integrated enterprise environment for construction companies.
Rahimi; Sohrab et al. US 20250094896 A1, Artificial Intelligence System for Forward Looking Scheduling.
WELLS; Robert Frances US 20110184771 A1, Implementation resource project management.
Vogel, Eric S. et al. US 20040162748 A1, Generating a resource allocation action plan.
Segev; Wasserkrug Eliezer et al. US 20110077994 A1, Optimization of workforce scheduling and capacity planning.
Gordenker; Miles et al. US 20220245551 A1, Adjustable work-flow capacity planning.
O'Keeffe; Paul J. US 20110093307 A1, System for providing a workforce planning tool.
Kipling, Debbie US 20020103687 A1, System and method for ordering contract workers.
Vogel, Eric S. et al. US 20040162753 A1, Resource allocation management and planning.
Santos; Cipriano A. et al. US 20110202382 A1, Workforce planning.
Kintner; Hallie J. et al. US 6732079 B1, Method of determining the best mix of regular and contract employees.
Beaumont, Nicholas. "Scheduling staff using mixed integer programming." European journal of operational research 98.3 (1997): 473-484.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221797000556
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 REED M. BOND whose telephone number is (571) 270-0585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 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, Patricia 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.
/REED M. BOND/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
August 13, 2026
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights