DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a non-final. Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-19 are pending. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 12/22/2025, amended claims 1, 3-6, 8-14, and 16-19; and canceled claims 7, 15, and 20.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection to claims 1-20, under 35 USC 101 (Alice), will be maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received on date 12/22/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant asserts that "the claimed invention (and any alleged abstract idea to which the claimed invention may be allegedly directed) is integrated into a practical application.” Examiner respectively disagrees.
As discussed, under the second prong of Step 2A, we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55.
Here, under the second prong of Step 2A, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of claims 1, and similarly claims 9 and 17, are the recitation of “at least one non-transitory storage device containing instructions; and at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, is configured to: divide a first process into a plurality of tasks to be completed, wherein the plurality of tasks comprise at least a first task and a second task, wherein completion of the first task is required prior to commencement of the second task; determine a first sublevel for the first task; determine a second sublevel for the second task, wherein the first sublevel is broader than the second sublevel; determine a first task availability status for the first task, wherein the first task availability status indicates whether the first task can be started by one of one or more users, wherein the first task availability is designated as waiting in an instance in which at least one prerequisite task of the one or more tasks needs to be at least partially completed before the first task can be started; in an instance the determined first task availability for the first task is waiting, cause the first task availability status of the first task to be changed from waiting to ready in an instance in which at least a portion of each of the at least one prerequisite task is completed; assign the first task to a first user of the one or more users; generate a user rating for each of the one or more users, wherein the user rating indicates an accuracy rating of the one or more users based on one or more previous tasks completed; upon completion of the first task by the first user, assign the second task to a second user of the one or more users based on the user rating of the second user as related to the second sublevel determined for the second task; train a machine learning model on previous data comprising at least completion of the first task by the first user and completion of the second task by the second user; modify a subsequent division of a second process based on the trained machine learning
model; and provide graphical information to the one or more users via a display.,” and these additional elements, individually and in combination, are nothing more than computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Accordingly, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 103:
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claim rejections have been considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth below in this Office action. The art rejection has been updated to address these amendments.
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 1-6, 8-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-19 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claims 1, 9, and 17 recite an abstract idea. Claims 1, 9, and 17 include “divide a first process into a plurality of tasks to be completed, wherein the plurality of tasks comprise at least a first task and a second task, wherein completion of the first task is required prior to commencement of the second task; determine a first sublevel for the first task; determine a second sublevel for the second task, wherein the first sublevel is broader than the second sublevel; determine a first task availability status for the first task, wherein the first task availability status indicates whether the first task can be started by one of one or more users, wherein the first task availability is designated as waiting in an instance in which at least one prerequisite task of the one or more tasks needs to be at least partially completed before the first task can be started; in an instance the determined first task availability for the first task is waiting, cause the first task availability status of the first task to be changed from waiting to ready in an instance in which at least a portion of each of the at least one prerequisite task is completed; assign the first task to a first user of the one or more users in an instance in which the first user finishes one of the one or more tasks; upon completion of the first task by the first user, assign the second task to a second user of the one or more users based on the user rating of the second user as related to the second sublevel determined for the second task; train a model on previous data comprising at least completion of the first task by the first user and completion of the second task by the second user; modify a subsequent division of a second process based on the trained model; and provide graphical information to the one or more users”.
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity-managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because the elements describe a process for determining and assigning tasks for one or more users. As a result, claims 1, 9, and 17 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2-6, 8, 10-14, 16, and 18-19 further describe the process for determining and assigning tasks for one or more users. As a result, claims 2-6, 8, 10-14, 16, and 18-19 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claims 1, 9, and 17 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 9, and 17 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 17 include a machine learning model, display devices, a non-transitory storage device, processing device, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and computer-readable program code. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 1, 9, and 17 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-6, 8, 10-14, 16, and 18-19 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17. As a result, claims 2-6, 8, 10-14, 16, and 18-19 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claims 1, 9, and 17 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claims 1, 9, and 17 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1, 9, and 17 include a machine learning model, display devices, a non-transitory storage device, processing device, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and computer-readable program code. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-6, 8, 10-14, 16, and 18-19 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17. As a result, claims 2-6, 8, 10-14, 16, and 18-19 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molander et al. (US Pub No. 2010/0257015) (hereinafter Molander et al.), in view of Carrier et al. (US Pub No. 2024/0264830) (hereinafter Carrier et al.), in view of Elenbaas et al. (US Pub No. 2009/0210282) (hereinafter Elenbaas et al.), and further in view of Volkov et al. (US Pub No. 2017/0076246) (hereinafter Volkov et al.).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, Molander discloses a system for determining and assigning tasks for one or more users in a virtual environment, the system comprising:
at least one non-transitory storage device containing instructions (see Molander, claims 6 and 21, wherein a computer-readable medium encoded with computer executable instructions for controlling a computer system); and
at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions (see Molander, par [0018], wherein a server application and can reside and be executed on a hardware server), is configured to:
divide a first process into a plurality of tasks to be completed, wherein the plurality of tasks comprise at least a first task and a second task, wherein completion of the first task is required prior to commencement of the second task (see Molander, para [0018], wherein these tasks will contain specific ordering and can be routed to default workgroups that typically perform the work defined in the task. These tasks can then be assigned and scheduled to individuals or crews at strategic points in time. The tasks within a work flow may all be assigned to an individual workgroup or subdivided and assigned to multiple workgroups based on expertise or workload; and paras [0016] & [0055], wherein work Queue can allow tasks to be prioritized based on several factors including-Order in the workflow, task importance, service order priority and critical task switches upstream. Tasks can be colored and assigned a numerical identifier to illustrate their urgency to the user. These tasks can then float to top of the priority lists so that they are graphically in view for the user to take action on);
determine a first sublevel for the first task; determine a second sublevel for the second task (see Molander, paras [0018] & [0055], wherein the tasks within a work flow may all be assigned to an individual workgroup or subdivided and assigned to multiple workgroups based on expertise or workload);
determine a first task availability status for the first task, wherein the first task availability status indicates whether the first task can be started by one of one or more users, wherein the first task availability is designated as waiting in an instance in which at least one prerequisite task of the one or more tasks needs to be at least partially completed before the first task can be started (see Molander, para [0066], wherein as the tasks are worked 408, each one can have a status set such as Open, Complete, Cancelled, Delayed or In Progress; para [0072], wherein referring to Fig. 10, an illustration of the First Available flow for assigning tasks is shown. The First Available algorithm checks the tasks and workgroup and looks for resources in the workgroup or workgroups that can perform the selected task; para [0071], wherein referring to Fig. 9, an illustration of task tables showing urgency flow is shown. Each data package representative of a task can have imbedded therein or associated therewith an urgency factor, which can be designed to be within the range of 1 ... 100. The assigned urgency factor can be based on various parameters including due date, estimated time to complete task, prerequisite task completion, age of request and other parameters…..The user will typically choose the top two since their urgency factor is the highest. The user can drag Task1 and Task2 from the bottom drawer or window displaying the task list or queue up into the calendar view to the appropriate time slot and resource to perform the work….; and para [0055], wherein each task within a series of tasks may each be dependent on the prior task being completed before it can be performed. If there is a dependency and the prior task has not been completed then a given task's urgency will likely drop because a field service person can't work on it anyway. The urgencies create a hierarchy of tasks and the user can take the top task, and match the task with the appropriate work groups and assign them out);
in an instance the determined first task availability for the first task is waiting, cause the first task availability status of the first task to be changed from waiting to ready in an instance in which at least a portion of each of the at least one prerequisite task is completed (see Molander, para [0012], where new work flows and new tasks a generated daily and even hourly and placed in queue awaiting assignment of resources and scheduling. Also, priorities for completion of tasks may change daily, particularly as new workflows and tasks are added to the queue for completion; para [0071], wherein referring to Fig. 9, an illustration of task tables showing urgency flow is shown. Each data package representative of a task can have imbedded therein or associated therewith an urgency factor, which can be designed to be within the range of 1 ... 100. The assigned urgency factor can be based on various parameters including due date, estimated time to complete task, prerequisite task completion, age of request and other parameters…..The user will typically choose the top two since their urgency factor is the highest. The user can drag Task1 and Task2 from the bottom drawer or window displaying the task list or queue up into the calendar view to the appropriate time slot and resource to perform the work….; and para [0054], wherein each task can be assigned a number between 0 and 100 to identify the level of urgency with 100 being the most urgent. The urgency function can take all of the tasks and can put them in a hierarchical order so the dispatcher or other user knows which ones to work with first. For example their might be 5,000-6,000 active tasks that are ready to be worked);
assign the first task to a first user of the one or more users (see Molander, para [0068], wherein the user can schedule and assign task 510 by dragging the tasks up into one of 4 different calendar views and then drag a resource on task to assign it);
upon completion of the first task by the first user, assign the second task to a second user of the one or more users (see Molander, paras [0009] & [0055], wherein each task within a series of tasks may each be dependent on the prior task being completed before it can be performed. If there is a dependency and the prior task has not been completed then a given task's urgency will likely drop because a field service person can't work on it anyway. The urgencies create a hierarchy of tasks and the user can take the top task, and match the task with the appropriate work groups and assign them out. Once the task is assigned and expanded over the appropriate time duration, the appropriate resources and time slots are booked and the data can be shared to other); and
provide graphical information to the one or more users via a display (see Molander, paras [0017]-[0018], wherein these tasks will contain specific ordering and can be routed to default workgroups that typically perform the work defined in the task. These tasks can then be assigned and scheduled to individuals or crews at strategic points in time. The tasks within a work flow may all be assigned to an individual workgroup or subdivided and assigned to multiple workgroups based on expertise or workload; para [0035], wherein a graphical user interface tying into a Work Management engine, where the graphical user interface provides a view to the user that reveals current status of assigned tasks, resource availability and allocation, task queue and calendar of events; and para [0035], wherein Fig. 10 is an illustration of the First Available flow for assigning tasks).
Molander et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first sublevel is broader than the second sublevel.
Analogous art Carrier discloses the first sublevel is broader than the second sublevel (see Carrier, para [0022], wherein in agile hierarchical structure 200, assume requirements are created in blocks as epics. Epics are usually considered the top level of the portion of the hierarchy (i.e., agile hierarchical structure 200) associated with actual work efforts. Epics are usually broad in scope and are meant to be split into multiple, smaller features, then stories, then tasks, before they can be worked on).
Molander directed to a system for generating a workflow of tasks. Carrier directed to generating project-based transition states in an information processing system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Molander, regarding the System for Graphical Client Interface Resource and Work Management Scheduler, to have included the first sublevel is broader than the second sublevel and provide graphical information to the one or more users via a display because both inventions teach improving efficiency and accuracy. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
Molander et al. fails to explicitly disclose generate a user rating for each of the one or more users, wherein the user rating indicates an accuracy rating of the one or more users based on one or more previous tasks completed; based on the user rating of the second user as related to the second sublevel determined for the second task.
Analogous art Elenbaas discloses generate a user rating for each of the one or more users, wherein the user rating indicates an accuracy rating of the one or more users based on one or more previous tasks completed (see Elenbaas, paras [0183]-[0186], wherein a worker's reputation score on the quality of the work is determined algorithmically by at least one of (i) work approval rates, (ii) overall satisfaction rating from a job owner, (iii) matchup ratings and (iv) audits…….The matchup ratings is the percentage of match-ups that the worker wins in contests when a third party arbiter of accuracy or quality compares two results generated by different workers based on the same inputs and instructions. The work management system 110 may conduct audits for various types of jobs and adjust the reputation scores of the workers; and para [0139], wherein the worker profile 780 may be accessed by the workflow engine 258 to search for workers qualifying for certain tasks. A task history database 784 stores the workers previous history of tasks and any feedback or reviews of the workers provided by job owners); and
Analogous art Elenbaas discloses upon completion of the first task by the first user, assign the second task to a second user of the one or more users based on the user rating of the second user as related to the second sublevel determined for the second task (see Elenbaas, para [0239], wherein tasks are marked as complete or provisionally complete. Workers are then given an opportunity to submit tasks and receive feedback before the tasks are closed for reintegration into a job; paras [0010], [0076], & [0091], wherein workflow engine 258, allow the job owner to track the status of jobs or tasks assigned to workers using the work management system 110. The job owner module 250 also communicates with other modules of the work management server 160 to present information to job owners and/or receive inputs from the job owners……assigned task into a plurality of subtasks. The plurality of subtasks are assigned to one or more users; and paras [0183]-[0186] & [0281], wherein the work management server may also include a method of normalizing ratings based on the rated item, with normalization of ratings for multiple individuals providing a rating that can be normalized based on the total set of individuals who have rated that item in the past).
Molander directed to a system for generating a workflow of tasks. Elenbaas directed to task assignment such as determining the trust level of the user's identity concerning job performance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Molander, regarding the System for Graphical Client Interface Resource and Work Management Scheduler, to have included generate a user rating for each of the one or more users, wherein the user rating indicates an accuracy rating of the one or more users based on one or more previous tasks completed; and upon completion of the first task by the first user, assign the second task to a second user of the one or more users based on the user rating of the second user as related to the second sublevel determined for the second task because both inventions teach improving task performance. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
Molander et al. fails to explicitly disclose train a machine learning model on previous data comprising at least completion of the first task by the first user and completion of the second task by the second user; and modify a subsequent division of a second process based on the trained machine learning model.
Analogous art Volkov discloses train a machine learning model on previous data comprising at least completion of the first task by the first user and completion of the second task by the second user (see Volkov, paras [0052]-[0053], wherein referring to Fig. 8 at step 810, task results are received for completion of a first set of iterations of tasks in a workflow. For example, numerous iterations of a human task are assigned to various human workers. As the human workers complete each iteration of the task, a training data database may be created that stores the results of these tasks….. at step 830, the training data may be used to build one or more machine learning models to perform at least one task in the workflow. Using the training data, build a machine learning model to perform at least one task or sub-task);
Analogous art Volkov discloses modify a subsequent division of a second process based on the trained machine learning model (see Volkov, paras [0050]-[0053], wherein a workflow optimization process may automatically modify the task configuration of the workflow…..the workflow optimization may suggest splitting up this single task into various subtasks. Thus, the workflow may be modified to accommodate unforeseen changes in workflows….referring to Fig. 8 at step 810, task results are received for completion of a first set of iterations of tasks in a workflow. For example, numerous iterations of a human task are assigned to various human workers. As the human workers complete each iteration of the task, a training data database may be created that stores the results of these tasks….. at step 830, the training data may be used to build one or more machine learning models to perform at least one task in the workflow. Using the training data, build a machine learning model to perform at least one task or sub-task); and
Analogous art Volkov discloses provide graphical information to the one or more users via a display (see Volkov, para [0034], wherein a web application designed to display tasks to human workers and receive user input. In this example, the task is displayed to the user in one panel of the web application).
Molander directed to a system for generating a workflow of tasks. Volkov directed to relating to providing recommendations for workflow alteration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Molander, regarding the System for Graphical Client Interface Resource and Work Management Scheduler, to have included comprising at least completion of the first task by the first user and completion of the second task by the second user; modify a subsequent division of a second process based on the trained machine learning model; and provide graphical information to the one or more users via a display because both inventions teach improving efficiency and accuracy. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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 claims 2, 10, and 18, Molander discloses the system of Claim 1.
Molander et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the user rating a user efficiency rating for each of the one or more users.
Analogous art Elenbaas discloses wherein the user rating a user efficiency rating for each of the one or more users (see Elenbaas, para [0166], wherein an overall reputation score, each worker may be associated with reputation scores specific to:(i) completion of task, (ii) quality of task results, (iii) timeliness, and (iv) independence of execution. Similarly, each job owner, in addition to an overall reputation score, may be associated with reputation scores specific to: (i) clarity of job definition, (ii) accuracy of estimated time required, (iii) approval of work, and (iv) timeliness of approval; and APPENDIX, wherein ratings for several different aspects of a particular question (e.g., overall performance, and then efficiency, timeliness, quality, etc)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Elenbaas would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 19, Molander discloses the system of Claim 2, wherein the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, is configured to assign the first task of the plurality of tasks to the first user (see Molander, para [0018], wherein these tasks will contain specific ordering and can be routed to default workgroups that typically perform the work defined in the task. These tasks can then be assigned and scheduled to individuals or crews at strategic points in time……Graphical Resource Scheduler can provide filtering capabilities that help dispatchers restrict the work in view so that volume does not impede the user's ability to efficiently schedule work).
Molander et al. fails to explicitly disclose based on the user efficiency rating of the first user.
Analogous art Elenbaas discloses is configured to assign the first task of the plurality of tasks to the first user based on the user efficiency rating of the first user (see Elenbaas, paras [0195]- [0197], wherein the work management server 1312 retrieves 1352 data from data repository 1318 about qualified workers whose location matches the location associated with the selected task.,,, After the worker is selected, the task is assigned 1360 to the selected worker; para [0244], wherein the work management server 160 recursively determines the estimated time for the completion of a job based on a job description and past performance data for similar tasks, data of workers assigned the tasks, and past history of jobs from the same job owner; and paras [0180]-[0186], wherein a worker's reputation score on task completion rate is determined by computing the percentage of tasks that are assigned to the worker and the tasks that is completed and approved).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Elenbaas would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 19, Molander discloses the system of Claim 2, wherein the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, is configured to assign the second task of the plurality of tasks to the second user (see Molander, para [0018], wherein these tasks will contain specific ordering and can be routed to default workgroups that typically perform the work defined in the task. These tasks can then be assigned and scheduled to individuals or crews at strategic points in time……Graphical Resource Scheduler can provide filtering capabilities that help dispatchers restrict the work in view so that volume does not impede the user's ability to efficiently schedule work).
Molander et al. fails to explicitly disclose based on the user efficiency rating for each of the one or more users.
Analogous art Elenbaas discloses is configured assign the second task of the plurality of tasks to the second user based on the user efficiency rating for the second user (see Elenbaas, paras [0195]- [0197], wherein the work management server 1312 retrieves 1352 data from data repository 1318 about qualified workers whose location matches the location associated with the selected task.,,, After the worker is selected, the task is assigned 1360 to the selected worker; para [0244], wherein the work management server 160 recursively determines the estimated time for the completion of a job based on a job description and past performance data for similar tasks, data of workers assigned the tasks, and past history of jobs from the same job owner; and paras [0180]-[0186], wherein a worker's reputation score on task completion rate is determined by computing the percentage of tasks that are assigned to the worker and the tasks that is completed and approved).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Elenbaas would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Molander discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, is further configured to determine a user availability for the first user, wherein the user availability indicates one or more time periods in which the first user is available (see Molander, para [0010], wherein employee availability by day of the week, hours of the day, their skill level and priority or seniority levels or categories).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Molander discloses the system of Claim 5, wherein the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, is further configured to update the user availability of the first user in an instance in which an availability change request is received for the first user (see Molander, para [0066], wherein as the tasks are worked 408, each one can have a status set such as Open, Complete, Cancelled, Delayed or In Progress. Some tasks can be considered critical when downstream tasks require that they be done in order. These tasks can typically be assigned and scheduled through Scheduler. After all the tasks have reach a conclusion 410 the status can be updated to reflect Complete or Cancelled. The workflow can be considered complete. Some workflows might be cancelled at the consumer's request or that the service could not be completed. Once the workflow has run its course, the service order will have a status set on it that defines what actually happened).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Molander discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, is further configured to assign a third task designated as ready of the plurality of tasks to the first user in an instance in which the first user completes the first task (see Molander, para [0012], where new work flows and new tasks a generated daily and even hourly and placed in queue awaiting assignment of resources and scheduling. Also, priorities for completion of tasks may change daily, particularly as new workflows and tasks are added to the queue for completion; and para [0061], wherein The Scheduler desktop application can also send updated information based on a user scheduling and assigning a task).
Regarding claims 9-14 and 16 rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claim 1-6 and 8, respectively, since they are the CRM claims corresponding to the system claims. Claim 9 discloses additional feature a computer program comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-readable program code portions embodied therein, the computer-readable program code (see Molander, claims 6 and 21, wherein a computer-readable medium encoded with computer executable instructions for controlling a computer system).
Regarding claims 17-19 rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claim 1-3, respectively, since they are the method claims corresponding to the system claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAFIZ A KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8534. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/HAFIZ A KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 04/02/2026