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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 21 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Amendment (“Response”) on 21 July 2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Not all the abstract ideas represented in a claim need to fit into one category grouping of abstract ideas, and identifying how each of the limitations fit into different categories of abstract ideas make the limitations no less abstract, but only provides clarity to Applicant which abstract ideas are being considered.
Applicant rightfully identifies the mental processes Examiner has identified, but then argues that limitations that utilize the algorithm cannot be mental processes (Response: pgs. 9-10). However, Examiner never utilized those features to teach mental processes, but yet did, in the same paragraph in the Final Rejection, recite those features as encompassing mathematical concepts.
Pausing a screen as seen in the Instant Specification has less to do with the screen or web page itself and more to do with the program running on the screen. The program running is paused while the an alert is displayed… pausing the display. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. One person pausing to display information to another person is an example of managing interactions between people, and utilizing a program or computer to pause while displaying the information amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Simply utilizing a computer or software to retrieve, send, or display information and to perform conventional inventory calculations faster and more efficiently is not enough to transform a patentineligible claim into a patent-eligible invention. See Bancorp Servs. LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding a claim not patent-eligible when “the computer simply performs more efficiently what could otherwise be accomplished manually”); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int' l Trade Comm' n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly . . . .”). Nearly every computer has the capability of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360. At most, the computer implementation involved in the claims at issue here is an attempt to limit use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. That, however, is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See id. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610–11; Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981).
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 a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-20 are directed to partitioning a scheduling problem, applying an algorithm to optimize a first subset, determining whether there are any remaining subsets to optimize, loading next subset, optimizing the loaded subset, running a final pass of the algorithm to improve global metrics, providing time stamps and pausing a screen/program to display data, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 8 (and similarly claims 1 and 15) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
partitioning, by a partition module of a computer comprising a processor and a memory, a scheduling problem into ordered subsets based on a prioritization scheme, wherein the partition module reduces a computational complexity of the scheduling problem by dividing the scheduling problem into smaller, less complex components to reduce solve times and improve solution quality;
applying, by a schedule optimizer module of the computer, a scheduling algorithm to optimize a first subset of the ordered subsets and freeze a corresponding schedule;
determining, by the computer, whether there are any remaining subsets that have not been optimized;
in response to the determining that there are any remaining subsets that have not been optimized, loading, by the computer, a next subset ordered according to the prioritization scheme;
optimizing, by the computer, the loaded subset without disturbing the frozen schedule;
in response to determining that there are no remaining subsets to optimize, running, by the computer, a final pass of the scheduling algorithm to improve one or more global schedule metrics;
providing, by the computer, time stamps to display the scheduling algorithm progress and timing during the run of the final pass of the scheduling algorithm; and
pausing, by the computer, a screen to display the final pass of the run of the scheduling algorithm.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mathematical concepts, mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a partition module of a computer comprising a processor and a memory”, “wherein the partition module reduces a computational complexity of the scheduling problem”, “a scheduling optimizer module” and “a screen” (the recited modules could only be software and are therefore not necessarily additional elements), nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a mathematical concept, performed in the mind or a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “a partition module of a computer comprising a processor and a memory”, “wherein the partition module reduces a computational complexity of the scheduling problem”, “a scheduling optimizer module” and “a screen” language, “partitioning…a scheduling problem into ordered subsets based on a prioritization scheme… dividing the scheduling problem into smaller, less complex components to reduce solve times and improve solution quality … determining… whether there are any remaining subsets that have not been optimized… and optimizing… the loaded subset without disturbing the frozen schedule” in the context of this claim encompasses mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, “applying… a scheduling algorithm to optimize a first subset of the ordered subsets and freeze a corresponding schedule… in response to determining that there are no remaining subsets to optimize, running… a final pass of the scheduling algorithm to improve one or more global schedule metrics” in the context of this claim encompasses mathematical concepts. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical relationship, mathematical formula or mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. Even further, “in response to the determining that there are any remaining subsets that have not been optimized, loading… a next subset ordered according to the prioritization scheme;… providing… time stamps to display the scheduling algorithm progress and timing during the run of the final pass of the scheduling algorithm; and pausing… to display the final pass of the run of the scheduling algorithm” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites three additional elements – “a partition module of a computer comprising a processor and a memory”, “wherein the partition module reduces a computational complexity of the scheduling problem”, “a scheduling optimizer module” and “a screen”. The “partition module of a computer comprising a processor and a memory”, “wherein the partition module reduces a computational complexity of the scheduling problem”, “scheduling optimizer module” and “screen” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. the partitioning, applying, determining, optimizing, running, providing and pausing steps), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. the loading step) and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h), i.e. the reducing computational complexity result). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a partition module of a computer comprising a processor and a memory”, “wherein the partition module reduces a computational complexity of the scheduling problem”, “a scheduling optimizer module” and “a screen” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activity and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “partition module of a computer comprising a processor and a memory”, “wherein the partition module reduces a computational complexity of the scheduling problem”, “scheduling optimizer module” and “screen” are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights