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 .
Response to Arguments
2. The Amendment filed on May 9, 2026 has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1 and 9, and the cancellation of claims 7 and 15.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues an oversimplification of the specific technical operations recited in the claims. Arguments include elements of feedback control but the “feedback” is a second round of internal processing- “programmatically generated synthetic target profiles,” not appearing to employ external real-world observation and evaluation of the performance of a first round processed ‘product.’ This appears to be the continual refinement of an initial schedule, and as a result, the improvement to the technology of automated schedule generation appears to be an improvement to the software for schedule generation, and not improving the computer itself.
The claims recite additional elements, reading as conventional computer hardware without indication of their application in novel or unique ways, or incorporating any modifications to technology. Thus, the Examiner disagrees that the claims express technical operations that describe the improvement of the technology of a computer.
The argument made in favor of a practical application does not include the integration of additional elements, real-time control of a machine in a technical field, building or improving the knowledge base of a machine learning model or artificial intelligence. The practical application argument relies on the aforementioned software as the improvement to the computer.
The Examiner finds the arguments not compelling and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 will not be withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-6, 8-14, 16 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16 are directed to a process (method), and product/article of manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention. Step 2A
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, scheduling employees to do work and optimizing those schedules based on feedback on the operation.
Claim 1 discloses a method, comprising: Retrieving a plurality of target profiles, each target profile including a target identifier and a reference value for a target attribute; (following rules and instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
generating, based on the plurality of target profiles, a first schedule including a first plurality of shift records, each shift record of the first plurality of shift records including one of the target identifiers; (following rules and instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
determining, a utilization metric for each target identifier based on the first schedule; (following rules and instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
generating, a modified target profile corresponding to one of the target identifiers selected based on the utilization metrics, the modified target profile including a modified value for the target attribute; (following rules and instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
determining, a residual time period corresponding to the first schedule by comparing the first schedule to granular labor demand data associated with a plurality of tasks over intraday intervals; (following rules and instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
generating, a synthetic target profile based on the residual time period; (following rules and instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
generating, a second schedule based on the modified target profile and the synthetic target profile, wherein generating the synthetic target profile includes assigning a synthetic target identifier and duplicating at least one reference value from one of the plurality of target profiles, (following rules and instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Additional limitations employ the method defining for each shift record, a time period, a task identifier, and a portion of time corresponding to the task, generating a utilization metric based on the sum of time periods associated with a target identifier, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 2), comparing the utilization metrics to a threshold where the target identifier is less than the threshold, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 3), determining efficiency metrics for each schedule and deploying the second schedule when the second metric exceeds the first metric, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 4), presenting a second schedule and a visual indicator of the shift record based on the utilization metrics, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 5), where generating the modified target profile in includes configuration data defining the modified value, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 6), where generating the synthetic target profile includes a synthetic target identifier and duplicating a reference value corresponding to one of the target profiles, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 8).
Each of these claimed limitations employ organizing human activity, following rules or instructions and mental processes to include observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Claims 9-14, 16 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 1-6, 8.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-6, 8-14, 16 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-6, 8-14, 16 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as a computing device, a display, a memory, and a processor, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-6, 8-14, 16 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-6, 8-14, 16 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16, were previously not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703) 756-1822, (michael.borowski@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights