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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on January 22, 2026. Claims 1, 4, 8, 11 and 15 have been amended.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending, and claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection in this Office Action.
The objection to the drawings from Fig. 3 to Fig. 6B as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4, 8, 11 and 15 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-20 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 10, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the amended claims integrate the stated exception into a practical limitation, and the claims provide specific improvements in technology so as to be limited to a practical application that improves over the prior systems.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a claim to integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claimed elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised 2019 Guidance.
Here, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “at least one processor”, “a computer readable medium”, and the term “automatically” for performing schedule change management operations.
First of all, the term “automatically” does not improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. The courts have held that “Automating manual and mental processes on generic computers does not make an abstract idea patent eligible.” See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[A]utomation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”).
Further, the specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, storing, displaying and transmitting information over a network. For example, the specification describes that “schedule change management, may be implemented, at least in part, in the form of executable code stored on non-transitory, tangible, machine-readable media that when run by one or more processors may cause the one or more processors to perform one or more steps” (see ¶ 40); and “It is also contemplated that software identified herein may be implemented using one or more general purpose or specific purpose computers and/or computer systems, networked and/or otherwise” (see ¶ 64). Since the claims encompass a person can manually perform the steps (e.g., monitoring, determining, identifying, etc.), reciting the “at least one processor” and “computer-readable media” in the claim is merely adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The Supreme Court’s decisions made it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exception are still exceptions. See MPEP 2106.04 (I). See Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that “[e]ven assuming” that a particular claimed feature was novel does not “avoid the problem of abstractness”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Using a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patenteligible.”); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea ‘while adding the words “apply it”’ is not enough . . . .”) (citation omitted); CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (the incidental use of a computer to perform mental processes does not impose a meaningful limitation on the claim scope). Thus, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
In the Remarks on page 11, Applicant argues that the combination of Schwartz, Potucek, and Kochar does not disclose, teach, or suggest at least the newly amended features as recited in amended claims 1, 8 and 15. However, Applicant’s arguments are directed to the newly amended limitations, and therefore, the newly amended features will be fully addressed in this Office Action.
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.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-7 are directed to a system comprising at least one processor and a computer readable medium, which falls within the statutory category of a machine. Claims 8-14 are directed to a method for schedule change management without tied to a particular machine for performing the steps, which falls outside of the four statutory categories. However, claims 8-14 will be included in Step 2 Analysis for the purpose of compact prosecution. Claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions, which falls within the statutory category of a product.
With respect to claims 8-14, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims are directed to a method without tied to a particular machine in the body of the claims for performing the steps. One factor to consider when determining whether a claim recites a §101 patent eligible process is to determine if the claimed process (1) is tied to a particular machine or; (2) transforms a particular article to a different state or thing. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) aff’d, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (U.S. 2010). (Machine-or-Transformation Test).
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking claim 1 as representative, the claim recites a schedule change management system comprising steps for processing schedule change request including validating and approving the pending schedule change request or providing a recommendation for the identified pending schedule change request; the dependent claims 2-7 further reciting the attributes or narrowing the limitations of claim 1. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor” for executing the instructions, and the term “automatically”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claims encompass a person can manually monitoring operational parameters affecting staffing, identifying a pending schedule change request, comparing the identified pending schedule change request with the automatic approval criteria, approving the pending schedule change request, determining the pending schedule change request is changeable, and identifying a change to shift intervals associated with the identified pending schedule change request”, which fall within the “mental processes” grouping. Further, the claims recite a schedule change management system including approving the identified pending schedule change request, generating a recommendation, transmitting a generated recommendation to a contact center agent, receiving an approval of the generated recommendation from the contact center agent, approving the generated recommendation, update a schedule of the contact center agent, revising the schedule in a user interface displayable at least to the contact center agent, and sending a schedule notification to the contact center agent are involved fundamental economic practices and managing interactions between people, which also directed to an abstract idea falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere nominal recitation of “at least one processor and a computer readable medium” do not take the claims out of the mental processing grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “at least one processor and a computer readable medium”, and the term “automatically”. The Specification describes that “It is contemplated that software identified herein may be implemented using one or more general purpose or specific purpose computers and/or computer systems, networked and/or otherer wise.” (see ¶ 64). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. The courts have held that merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). With respect to the team “Automatically”, the courts have held that “Automating manual and mental processes on generic computers does not make an abstract idea patent eligible.” See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[A]utomation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effect designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “at least one processor and a computer readable medium”, and the term “automatically”. The Specification describes that “It is contemplated that software identified herein may be implemented using one or more general purpose or specific purpose computers and/or computer systems, networked and/or otherer wise.” (see ¶ 64). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, storing, and transmitting information over a network. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); 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). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-7 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims 8-14 and 15-20 parallel claims 1-7—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, 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. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz et al., (US 9378476, hereinafter: Schwartz), and in view of Potucek et al., (US 2018/0240322, hereinafter: Potucek), and further in view of Kochar et al., (US 2023/0214879, hereinafter: Kochar), and Foss et al., (US 8744889 B1, hereinafter: Foss).
Regarding claim 1, Schwartz discloses a schedule change management system comprising:
at least one processor and a computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions stored in association therewith that are accessible to (see col. 19, lines 1-3; col. 16, lines 3-20), and executable by, the at least one processor, to perform operations which comprise:
establishing that a new staffing situation is present based on the monitored operational parameters, automatic approval criteria, or both (see col. 5, lines 4-36, col. 11, line 63 to col. 12, line 33);
determining that the new staffing situation meets a current staffing threshold (see col. 14, lines 7-31);
identifying a pending schedule change request submitted by a contact center agent (see col., 4, lines 59-65; col. 14, lines 32-58; col. 16, lines 50-67);
comparing the identified pending schedule change request with the automatic approval criteria (see col. 13, lines 1-15, col. 22, lines 1-10):
receiving an approval of the generated recommendation from the contact center agent (see col. 5, lines 37-67, col. 14, line 32 to col. 15, line 30); and
then automatically approving the generated recommendation (see col. 2, lines 1-10; col. 4, lines 20-27; col. 8, line 45 to col. 9, line 5; col. 16, line 50 to col. 17, line 33);
automating, using a scheduler process of the schedule change management system, an update of a schedule of the contact center agent based on the approved identified pending schedule change request or the approved generated recommendation (see col. 7, lines 14-45; claim 1(ii), claim 9 (iv)); and
sending a schedule notification to the contact center agent (see claim 9, iv, III).
Schwartz discloses tracking staffing level gaps (see col. 1, lines 29-35).
Schwartz does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Potucek in an analogous art for providing remote monitoring control operation discloses
monitoring operational parameters affecting staffing needs and automatic approval criteria (see ¶ 439, ¶ 426, claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schwartz to include teaching of Potucek in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of data filtering, resulting in more focused solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Schwartz discloses a technology can be used to facilitate the submission and processing of requests for schedule changes and automatically approve or deny the changes requested (see col. 2, lines 1-10).
Schwartz and Potucek do not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however, Kochar in an analogous art for automatically approval of promotion discloses
when the identified pending schedule change request meets the automatic approval criteria, automatically approving the identified pending schedule change request (see ¶ 21, ¶ 40, claim 21, Step 4); or,
when the identified pending schedule change request does not meet the automatic approval criteria (see ¶ 21, ¶ 186, claim 21, Step 5):
determining that the identified pending schedule change request is changeable to meet one of the automatic approval criteria (see ¶ 21-22, ¶ 40-41, ¶ 95);
generating a recommendation for the identified pending schedule change request (see ¶ 40, ¶ 44);
transmitting the generated recommendation to the contact center agent (see ¶ 49, ¶ 95-96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schwartz and in view of Potucek to include teaching of Kochar in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Schwartz, Potucek and Kochar do not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however, Foss in an analogous art for planning and scheduling discloses
identifying a change to shift intervals associated with the identified pending schedule change request that causes the identified pending schedule change request to meet the one of the automatic approval criteria (see col. 1, lines 36-51; col. 5, lines 37-46,); and
automatically revising the schedule in a user interface displayable at least to the contact center agent (see col. 1, lines 52-67, col. 8, lines 23-25, lines 48-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schwartz and in view of Potucek and Kochar to include teaching of Foss in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more flexible solution. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Schwartz discloses the schedule change management system of claim 1, wherein the operational parameters comprise one or more of unplanned absenteeism, contact volume inflow, skills needed (see col. 10, lines 49-58), understaffing, overstaffing (see col. 11, lines 3-24, col. 15, lines 1-30), or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 3, Schwartz discloses the schedule change management system of claim 1, wherein generating a recommendation for the identified pending schedule change request comprises generating revisions to the identified pending schedule change request to meet the automatic approval criteria (see col. 3, lines 15-22; col. 4, lines 4-27, col. 7, line 46 to col. 8, line 10).
Regarding claim 4, Schwartz, Potucek and Kochar do not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however, Foss discloses the schedule change management system of claim 3, wherein the revisions comprise a change to one of the shift interval in the identified pending schedule change request to meet one or more available shift intervals from one or more other call center agents (see col. 1, lines 36-51; col. 4, lines 46-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schwartz and in view of Potucek and Kochar to include teaching of Foss in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more flexible solution. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Schwartz discloses the schedule change management system of claim 1, wherein, when the identified pending schedule change request does not meet the automatic approval criteria, the operations further comprise canceling the identified pending schedule change request (see col. 5, lines 15-36, col. 19, claim 2).
Regarding claim 6, Schwartz discloses the schedule change management system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise sending the schedule notification to a supervisor of the contact center agent (see col. 4, lines 14-34, col. 23, lines 36-45).
Regarding claim 7, Schwartz discloses to determine whether the change requests would be automatically approved, the schedule change interface would include a plurality of slots and a color code list of statuses to indicate the current status of the slots and what status change requests would be automatically accepted.
Schwartz and Potucek do not explicitly disclose changing a status to automatically approved, however, Kochar discloses the schedule change management system of claim 1, wherein, when the identified pending schedule change request meets the automatic approval criteria, the operations further comprise changing a status of the identified pending schedule change request to automatically approved (see ¶ 21, ¶ 40, ¶ 95). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schwartz and in view of Potucek to include teaching of Kochar in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 8, Schwartz discloses a method of schedule change management, comprising:
establishing that a new staffing situation is present based on the monitored operational parameters, automatic approval criteria, or both (see col. 5, lines 4-36, col. 11, line 63 to col. 12, line 33);
determining that the new staffing situation meets a current staffing threshold (see col. 14, lines 7-31);
identifying a pending schedule change request submitted by a contact center agent (see col., 4, lines 59-65; col. 14, lines 32-58; col. 16, lines 50-67);
comparing the identified pending schedule change request with the automatic approval criteria (see col. 13, lines 1-15, col. 22, lines 1-10):
receiving an approval of the generated recommendation from the contact center agent (see col. 5, lines 37-67, col. 14, line 32 to col. 15, line 30); and
then automatically approving the generated recommendation (see col. 4, lines 20-27; col. 8, line 45 to col. 9, line 5; col. 16, line 50 to col. 17, line 33);
automating, using a scheduler process of the schedule change management system, an update of a schedule of the contact center agent based on the approved identified pending schedule change request or the approved generated recommendation (see col. 7, lines 14-45; claim 1(ii), claim 9 (iv)); and
sending a schedule notification to the contact center agent (see claim 9, iv, III).
Schwartz discloses tracking staffing level gaps (see col. 1, lines 29-35).
Schwartz does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Potucek in an analogous art for providing remote monitoring control operation discloses
monitoring operational parameters affecting staffing needs and automatic approval criteria (see ¶ 439, ¶ 426, claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schwartz to include teaching of Potucek in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of data filtering, resulting in more focused solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Schwartz discloses a technology can be used to facilitate the submission and processing of requests for schedule changes and automatically approve or deny the changes requested (see col. 2, lines 1-10).
Schwartz does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however, Kochar in an analogous art for automatically approval of promotion discloses
when the identified pending schedule change request meets the automatic approval criteria, automatically approving the identified pending schedule change request (see ¶ 21, ¶ 40, claim 21, Step 4); or,
when the identified pending schedule change request does not meet the automatic approval criteria (see ¶ 21, ¶ 186, claim 21, Step 5);
determining that the identified pending schedule charge request is changeable to meet one of the automatic approval criteria (see ¶ 21-22, ¶ 40-41, ¶ 95);
generating a recommendation for the identified pending schedule change request (see ¶ 40, ¶ 44);
transmitting the generated recommendation to the contact center agent (see ¶ 49, ¶ 95-96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schwartz and in view of Potucek to include teaching of Kochar in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Schwartz, Potucek and Kochar do not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however, Castonguay in an analogous art for planning and scheduling discloses
identifying a change to shift intervals associated with the identified pending schedule change request that causes the identified pending schedule change request to meet the one of the automatic approval criteria (see col. 1, lines 36-51; col. 5, lines 37-46); and
automatically revising the schedule in a user interface displayable at least to the contact center agent (see col. 1, lines 52-67, col. 8, lines 23-25, lines 48-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schwartz and in view of Potucek and Kochar to include teaching of Foss in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more flexible solution. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 9, Schwartz discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the operational parameters comprise one or more of unplanned absenteeism, contact volume inflow, skills needed (see col. 10, lines 49-58), understaffing, overstaffing (see col. 11, lines 3-24, col. 15, lines 1-30), or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 10, Schwartz discloses the method of claim 8, wherein generating a recommendation for the identified pending schedule change request comprises generating revisions to the identified pending schedule change request to meet the automatic approval criteria (see col. 3, lines 15-22; col. 4, lines 4-27, col. 7, line 46 to col. 8, line 10).
Regarding claim 11, Schwartz, Potucek and Kochar do not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however, Foss discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the revisions comprise a change to one of the shift intervals in the identified pending schedule change request to meet one or more available shift interval from one or more other call center agents (see col. 1, lines 36-41; col. 3, lines 3-28, col. 4, line 46-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schwartz and in view of Potucek and Kochar to include teaching of Foss in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more flexible solution. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Schwartz discloses the method of claim 8, wherein, when the identified pending schedule change request does not meet the automatic approval criteria, further comprises canceling the identified pending schedule change request (see col. 5, lines 15-36, col. 19, claim 2).
Regarding claim 13, Schwartz discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising sending the schedule notification to a supervisor of the contact center agent (see col. 4, lines 14-34, col. 23, lines 36-45).
Regarding claim 14, Schwartz discloses to determine whether the change requests would be automatically approved, the schedule change interface would include a plurality of slots and a color code list of statuses to indicate the current status of the slots and what status change requests would be automatically accepted.
Schwartz and Potucek do not explicitly disclose changing a status to automatically approved, however, Kochar discloses the method of claim 8, wherein, when the identified pending schedule change request meets the automatic approval criteria, further comprises changing a status of the identified pending schedule change request to automatically approved (see ¶ 21, ¶ 40, ¶ 95). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schwartz and in view of Potucek to include teaching of Kochar in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 15, Schwartz discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions executable by at least one processor (see col. 16, lines 3-20) to perform operations which comprise:
establishing that a new staffing situation is present based on the monitored operational parameters, automatic approval criteria, or both (see col. 5, lines 4-36, col. 11, line 63 to col. 12, line 33);
determining that the new staffing situation meets a current staffing threshold (see col. 14, lines 7-31);
identifying a pending schedule change request submitted by a contact center agent (see col., 4, lines 59-65; col. 14, lines 32-58; col. 16, lines 50-67);
comparing the identified pending schedule change request with the automatic approval criteria (see col. 13, lines 1-15, col. 22, lines 1-10):
receiving an approval of the generated recommendation from the contact center agent (see col. 5, lines 37-67, col. 14, line 32 to col. 15, line 30); and
then automatically approving the generated recommendation (see col. 4, lines 20-27; col. 8, line 45 to col. 9, line 5; col. 16, line 50 to col. 17, line 33);
automating, using a scheduler process of the schedule change management system, an update of a schedule of the contact center agent based on the approved identified pending schedule change request or the approved generated recommendation (see col. 7, lines 14-45; claim 1(ii), claim 9 (iv));
sending a schedule notification to the contact center agent (see claim 9, iv, III).
Schwartz discloses tracking staffing level gaps (see col. 1, lines 29-35).
Schwartz does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Potucek in an analogous art for providing remote monitoring control operation discloses
monitoring operational parameters affecting staffing needs and automatic approval criteria (see ¶ 439, ¶ 426, claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schwartz to include teaching of Potucek in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of data filtering, resulting in more focused solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Schwartz discloses a technology can be used to facilitate the submission and processing of requests for schedule changes and automatically approve or deny the changes requested (see col. 2, lines 1-10).
Schwartz does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however, Kochar in an analogous art for automatically approval of promotion discloses
when the identified pending schedule change request meets the automatic approval criteria, automatically approving the identified pending schedule change request (see ¶ 21, ¶ 40, claim 21, Step 4); or,
when the identified pending schedule change request does not meet the automatic approval criteria (see ¶ 21, ¶ 186, claim 21, Step 5):
determining that the identified pending schedule charge request is changeable to meet one of the automatic approval criteria (see ¶ 21-22, ¶ 40-41, ¶ 95);
generating a recommendation for the identified pending schedule change request (see ¶ 40, ¶ 44);
transmitting the generated recommendation to the contact center agent (see ¶ 49, ¶ 95-96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schwartz and in view of Potucek to include teaching of Kochar in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Schwartz, Potucek and Kochar do not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however, Foss in an analogous art for planning and scheduling discloses
identifying a change to shift intervals associated with the identified pending schedule change request that causes the identified pending schedule change request to meet the one of the automatic approval criteria (see col. 1, lines 36-51; col. 5, lines 37-46,); and
automatically revising the schedule in a user interface displayable at least to the contact center agent (see col. 1, lines 52-67, col. 8, lines 23-25, lines 48-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schwartz and in view of Potucek and Kochar to include teaching of Foss in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more flexible solution. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 16, Schwartz discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operational parameters comprise one or more of unplanned absenteeism, contact volume inflow, skills needed (see col. 10, lines 49-58), understaffing, overstaffing (see col. 11, lines 3-24, col. 15, lines 1-30), or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 17, Schwartz discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein generating a recommendation for the identified pending schedule change request comprises generating revisions to the identified pending schedule change request to meet the automatic approval criteria (see col. 3, lines 15-22; col. 4, lines 4-27, col. 7, line 46 to col. 8, line 10).
Regarding claim 18, Schwartz discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein, when the identified pending schedule change request does not meet the automatic approval criteria, the operations further comprise canceling the identified pending schedule change request (see col. 5, lines 15-36, col. 19, claim 2).
Regarding claim 19, Schwartz discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise sending the schedule notification to a supervisor of the contact center agent (see col. 4, lines 14-34, col. 23, lines 36-45).
Regarding claim 20, Schwartz discloses to determine whether the change requests would be automatically approved, the schedule change interface would include a plurality of slots and a color code list of statuses to indicate the current status of the slots and what status change requests would be automatically accepted.
Schwartz and Potucek do not explicitly disclose changing a status to automatically approved, however, Kochar discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein, when the identified pending schedule change request meets the automatic approval criteria, the operations further comprise changing a status of the identified pending schedule change request to automatically approved (see ¶ 21, ¶ 40, ¶ 95). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schwartz and in view of Potucek to include teaching of Kochar in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iknoian (US 2007/0179830) discloses a method for scheduling employee shifts.
Castonguay et al., (WO 92/07318) discloses a method for planning, scheduling and managing personnel in an environment there is varying workload by time of day.
Garcia et al., (US 2008/0046305) discloses a method for scheduling employees into work shift positions.
Westland et al., (US 10535024 B1) discloses a system for determining employee shift for a particular time duration.
Naik et al., (US 7930202 B2) discloses a method for determining a change schedule having multiple approvers with scheduling constraints associated with a set of candidate change schedules for each time period of a number of time period.
Bagheri et al., (US 2014/0278650) discloses a method for mobile collaborative workforce scheduling comprises receiving a request to change the work schedule, approving and denying the request to change the work schedule.
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 PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights