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 December 18, 2025, has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and the cancellation of claims 7 and 15.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues that the invention enable the automated assessment of factors that previous systems are unable to assess automatically, while mitigating the increase in computational complexity arising from such assessment." The Examiner notes this, pointing out that the mechanism that appears to deliver this is software applied to a generic processor, and is a case of “Apply it.”
Applicant also argues that the mitigation of the increase in computational complexity eliminates the judicial exception. Examiner disagrees, as the computer executes the same mental processes, rules and instructions required to achieve the outcome based on the programming provided by a programmer. The judicial exception is applied through the automation, not eliminating the judicial exception.
Applicant additionally argues that generating, at the computing device, a synthetic target profile based on the residual time period," and "generating, at the computing device, a second schedule based on the modified target profile and the synthetic target profile," is unquestionably a practical application, particularly for entities to efficiently integrate and utilize resources… The Examiner notes that despite positive impacts from automation processing information to efficiently integrate resources, the Examiner disagrees that this constitutes a practical application. A practical application requires an improvement to the technology of a computer or the integration of additional elements to implement action beyond the information generated by a processor.
Thus, the Examiner rejects the argument that the abstract ideas are integrated into a practical application. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 will not be withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments in favor of amended claim 1 and the clarification arguments are compelling, thus independent claims 1 and 9 are not rejected and by dependency, claims 2-6, 8, 10-14, and 16 are not rejected. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will be withdrawn.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; (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, (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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Claims 1 and 9 are not rejected by prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Dependent
claims 2-6, 8, 10-14 and 16 are not rejected because of their inherent dependency on claims 1, and 9.
The closest prior art to the invention includes Tanaka, (US 20160342929A1), “Method for Determining Staffing Needs Based in Part on Sensor Inputs,” and Jacobs (US 11132630 B1), “Employee Scheduling System Providing Transparency. ” None of the prior art alone or in combination teach the claimed invention as recited in this claim wherein the novelty is in the combination of all the limitations and not in a single limitation.
Regarding claim 1, A method, comprising:
retrieving, at a computing device, a plurality of target profiles, each target profile including a target identifier and a reference value for a target attribute; Tanaka teaches the computing device, target profile, identifier and reference value,
generating, at the computing device, 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; Tanaka teaches a first schedule and identifiers,
determining, at the computing device, a utilization metric for each target identifier based on the first schedule; Tanaka teaches a utilization metric,
generating, at the computing device, 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; Tanaka teaches the modified target profile based on utilization,
determining, at the computing device, a residual time period corresponding to the first schedule; Tanaka does not teach the residual time period, Jacobs teaches this,
generating, at the computing device, a synthetic target profile based on the residual time period; and generating, at the computing device, a second schedule based on the modified target profile and the synthetic target profile. Neither Tanaka or Jacobs teach developing a synthetic target profile (using unscheduled or idle time) or generating a second schedule based on the modified target profile and synthetic target profile.
Claim 9 is similarly not rejected for reasons corresponding to claim 1, as the addition of a computing device comprising a processor and a memory does not change the rationale for not rejecting the claim. Tanaka teaches the system comprises at least one electronic processor and memory device [FIG. 4.]).
Claims 2-6, 8, 10-14 and 16 are not rejected because of their inherent dependency on claims 1, and 9.
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. 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