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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on December 20, 2023, wherein claims 72-91 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are not of sufficient quality to permit examination. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
Applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS to submit new drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.81. Extensions of time may be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133). Failure to timely submit replacement drawing sheets will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the standards for drawings according to 37 CFR §1.84 is not met. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 72-91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 72-89 are directed to a method (i.e., process), and claims 90-91 are directed to a system (i.e. machine). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claims (72, 86, 90) and dependent claims (73-85, 87-89, 91) recite obtaining /receiving/accessing/etc., information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature), data/information analysis, organization, and manipulation to determine more information/data (matching, scheduling, shift analysis, credentialling, etc.,), and providing/displaying this determined data for further analysis and decision-making. The limitations of the independent claims (72, 86, 90) and dependent claims (73-85, 87-89, 91), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (commercial interactions (agreements and business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (scheduling and following rules or instructions)). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57)
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of, for example, computer implemented, network, systems, software as a service (SaaS) platform, devices, modules (software), mobile devices/applications, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (in Independent claim 72 and its dependent claims 73-85); computing devices, remote server, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (in independent claim 86 and its dependent claims 87-89); and system, memories, processors, computing system, fuel dispenser, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (independent claim 90 and its dependent claim 91) in the context of the independent claims (72, 86, 90) and dependent claims (73-85, 87-89, 91), the claim encompasses the above stated abstract idea of organizing human activity (commercial interactions (agreements and business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (scheduling and following rules or instructions)). As shown above, the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/devices, etc., which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer/computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/devices, etc., terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/devices, etc. The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claims (72, 86, 90) and dependent claims (73-85, 87-89, 91) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The independent claims (72, 86, 90) and dependent claims (73-85, 87-89, 91) recite using known and generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/devices, etc., and software (for example, computer implemented, network, systems, software as a service (SaaS) platform, devices, modules (software), mobile devices/applications, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (in Independent claim 72 and its dependent claims 73-85); computing devices, remote server, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (in independent claim 86 and its dependent claims 87-89); and system, memories, processors, computing system, fuel dispenser, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (independent claim 90 and its dependent claim 91)). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, ¶¶ 0020, 0036, 0040 [these paragraphs show general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The independent claims (72, 86, 90) and dependent claims (73-85, 87-89, 91) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims (73-85, 87-89, 91) further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The above rejection includes and details the discussion of dependent claims and the above rejection applies to all the dependent claim limitations. In summary, the dependent claims further state using obtained data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature), data/information analysis, organization, and manipulation to determine more information/data (matching, scheduling, shift analysis, credentialling, etc.,), and providing/displaying this determined data for further analysis and decision-making. The limitations of the dependent claims (73-85, 87-89, 91), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (commercial interactions (agreements and business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (scheduling and following rules or instructions)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the dependent claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/devices, etc., and software (for example, computer implemented, network, systems, software as a service (SaaS) platform, devices, modules (software), mobile devices/applications, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (in Independent claim 72 and its dependent claims 73-85); computing devices, remote server, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (in independent claim 86 and its dependent claims 87-89); and system, memories, processors, computing system, fuel dispenser, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (independent claim 90 and its dependent claim 91))which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general-purpose computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04 and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The dependent claims also merely recites post-solution/extra-solution activities (with generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing components/devices/etc.,). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. Also, the dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the juridical exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself. See detailed rejection above.
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, 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 72-79 and 84-85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulzar (US 2020/0005935) in view of Thompson (US 2015/0154721).
As per claim 72, Gulzar discloses a computer implemented method for matching a facility with a professional at one or more work shifts (Abstract [worker…recruiting…shift assignment…matching…scheduling…facilities…shift assignment]; 0010, 0015-0018), comprising:
receiving, at a network system, from a first device associated with the facility, a scheduling request for a specified work shift at the facility (¶¶ 0010 [on-demand…shift scheduling], 0025 [scheduling step], 0054 [creating…schedule], 0080+ [scheduling…on-demand], 0017; see also 0080-0090 [gives example of need and demand based scheduling of workers in a healthcare facility], 0125-0127);
viewing, at the network system, from a second device associated with the professional viewing of the specified work shift (claims 5-7 [display…view…shift….workers….worker…device…view…calendars…workers…shift…worker….device]; ¶¶ 0027-0029 [timecard shown…worker…device; see with 0012 [discussing scheduling and timecards as using shifts] and 0015 [calendar view…displaying shifts]], 0119-0122 [viewing...shift…acceptance…by…worker], 0134 [timecard shown…worker…device; see with 0012 [discussing scheduling and timecards as using shifts] and 0015 [calendar view…displaying shifts]], 0156-0159);
allowing the professional to accept the specified work shift (¶¶ 0120 [waiting…acceptance by the worker], 0124 [confirmation by…worker; see also 018], 0130 [contact…candidate… announces all the parameters of the shift…recipient of the call can respond by either declining or accepting the shift]; see also 0010 [offer acceptance]); and
confirming by the facility of the professional of the specified work shift (¶¶ 0027 [confirming shifts], 0067; see also 0118).
Gulzar does not explicitly state including a software as a service (SaaS) platform.
Analogous art Thompson (matching professionals to jobs/work) discloses including a software as a service (SaaS) platform (¶¶ 0013 [system may be configured to include a SaaS (software as a service) platform]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Gulzar a software as a service (SaaS) platform as taught by analogous art Thompson in order to execute the processes in the network efficiently/optimally and securely (secure network) since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Thompson (SaaS platforms are old and well-known to be used by businesses in their networks for efficiency and optimization (e.g. lower costs, high scalability to meet changing business needs, remote accessibility from any internet-connected device, automatic updates and maintenance handled by the vendor, and enhanced security and reliability)) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D); and also since 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 (without modifying either the primary reference or secondary reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR-A). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 73, Gulzar discloses the method of claim 72, further comprising a credentialing system module (¶¶ 0007 [credentialing], 0013-0014 [creates…credentialing steps], 0023 [compliance manager…credentialing]).
As per claim 74, Gulzar discloses the method of claim 73, wherein the credentialing system module utilizes the network system to access and validate the professional's credentials (¶¶ 0007-0010 [credentialing…verification…MSP system…integrated workflow for various approvers/coordinators in the onboard of a candidate to include following steps—screening, interview scheduling, offer acceptance and contract compliance, credentialing; see with 0013, 0075 [with Fig. 3], 0137 [with fig. 38]], 0013-0014 [creates…credentialing steps], 0023 [compliance manager…credentialing]; see also 0170).
As per claim 75, Gulzar discloses the method of claim 72, further comprising a searching module (figs. 9 [with para. 0039], 29 [with para. 0059 – illustrates a screen of the 5-dimensional view on executing searches], 31 [with para. 0061 – 3-dimensional view on executing searches], 33 [with para. 0063 – shows search screen]; ¶¶ 0009 [creating multidimensional searchable], 0018 [automated search], 0102-0103 [search and matching algorithm…search and match]).
As per claim 76, Gulzar discloses the method of claim 75, wherein the searching module searches by one or more customizable features (figs. 9 [with para. 0039 that also shows customizable features], 29 [with para. 0059 – illustrates a screen of the 5-dimensional view on executing searches and showing customizable features], 31 [with para. 0061 – 3-dimensional view on executing searches], 33 [with para. 0063 – shows search screen]; ¶¶ 0009 [creating multidimensional searchable], 0018 [automated search], 0102-0103 [search and matching algorithm…search and match], 0120-0128 [searches…screen…clickable to do…action…search criteria (e.g. of customizable)]).
As per claim 77, Gulzar discloses the method of claim 72, further comprising a scheduling system module (¶¶ 0010 [scheduling], 0012 [ start of shift, end of shift, total hours, and total permissible mealtime/breaks…scheduling; see with 0015 [calendar]], 0090, 0114-0117 [schedule…scheduling platform]).
As per claim 78, Gulzar discloses the method of claim 77, wherein the scheduling system module creates a re-occurring template (¶¶ 0025 [scheduling…template], 0099 [create…schedule…pre-existing…template (showing the template is re-occurring/re-used)], 0114 [schedule…created from template earlier created for the…facility as part of the facility configuration (re-occurring template)]; see also 0010 [scheduling], 0012 [ start of shift, end of shift, total hours, and total permissible mealtime/breaks…scheduling; see with 0015 [calendar]], 0025 [scheduling…template], 0090).
As per claim 79, Gulzar discloses the method of claim 72, further comprising a recruitment and retention module (Abstract [recruiting…onboard…candidate]; ¶¶ 0010 [onboard…candidate], 0018-0021 [proposing one or more candidates best suited (recruiting)…onboard process (retaining/retention process); see with 0077 [discussing the platform/system and processes], 0082 [discussing the platform/system and processes]]; see also 0089-0094, 0102-0103).
As per claim 84, Gulzar discloses the method of claim 72, further comprising a messaging module (¶¶ 0095 [Email…and text are available channels], 0106 [email or text notification; see with 0139-0142 [capable of receiving and sending data over a network…communication medium… configured to communicate a message, such as through email, short message service (SMS), multimedia message service (MMS), instant messaging (IM)]]; Fig. 38).
As per claim 85, Gulzar discloses the method of claim 84, wherein the messaging module is configured to provide a direct communication link between the facility and the professional (¶¶ 0095 [Email…and text are available channels], 0106 [email or text notification; see with 0139-0142 [capable of receiving and sending data over a network…communication medium… configured to communicate a message, such as through email, short message service (SMS), multimedia message service (MMS), instant messaging (IM)]]; Fig. 38).
Claim 80 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulzar (US 2020/0005935) in view of Thompson (US 2015/0154721), further in view of Vianello (US 2011/0231329).
As per claim 80, Gulzar discloses the method of claim 79 and a recruitment and retention module and recruiting and retaining multiple (first, second, third, etc.,) professionals (see citations above for claims 72-74 and 79). However, neither Gulzar nor Thompson explicitly state providing one or more incentives.
Analogous art Vianello providing one or more incentives (for example, see ¶ 0192 [job…benefits…incentive…bonus…offers…particular job; see with 0067 and 0077 [recruiting]; 0089 [recruiting…benefits programs]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Gulzar in view of Thompson providing incentives as taught by analogous art Vianello in order to recruit and retain the best matched candidates since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Vianello (offering incentives is an old and well-known concept in recruitment and retention of people) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Claim 81 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulzar (US 2020/0005935) in view of Thompson (US 2015/0154721), further in view of Martinez et al., (US 2021/0319379).
As per claim 81, Gulzar discloses the method of claim 72, but neither Gulzar nor Thompson explicitly state a payment processing module configured to allow the facility to directly pay the professional through a mobile application.
Analogous art Martinez discloses payment processing module configured to allow the facility to directly pay the professional through a mobile application (¶¶ 0006 [a plurality of employers and a plurality of workers are registered on a network-based work assignment platform…payment to…worker are coordinated on the network-based work assignment platform], 0013-0014 [worker…wages…employer payment systems, P2P payment systems], 0030-0031 [mobile app…existing job criteria (wage rate or pay amount) to cause an invoice to be generated or a payment event to be raised through API 150 to a corresponding payment system 130 and/or P2P payment system…supports real-time payments and on-demand payment options to both the employer and/or worker…mobile app; with 0036]; see also 0021-0022 [mobile app…network-based…platform…payment system….employer…employer payment systems and P2P payment systems for payment coordination…mobile app…worker device…bank account/payment identifier]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Gulzar in view of Thompson payment processing module configured to allow the facility to directly pay the professional through a mobile application as taught by analogous art Martinez in order to efficiently pay workers/employees/etc., for services since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Martinez (payment processing over a network to workers/professionals/etc., using mobile application is old and well-known with most companies and organizations processing payments/wages/etc., in this way) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Claims 82-83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulzar (US 2020/0005935) in view of Thompson (US 2015/0154721), further in view of Elenbaas et al., (US 2009/0204471).
As per claim 82, Gulzar discloses the method of claim 72, but neither Gulzar nor Thompson explicitly state further comprising a ratings system module.
Analogous art Elenbaas discloses a ratings system module (¶¶ 0179 [a worker's…score on on-time performance rates], 0180-0181 [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…overall satisfaction ratings are used on tasks that have subjective elements in the task…inputs from the job owners may be 10-Likert point scale asked of job owners…performance…satisfaction ratings], 0186 [reputation score manager…updated reputation scores with ratings of the user…in systems]; see also 0276-0280 [ work management server 160 includes a method of mixing quality standard evaluations from external and internal sources]; and Table 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Gulzar in view of Thompson a ratings system module as taught by analogous art Elenbaas in order to continually match and keep/get the best candidates since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Elenbaas (rating performances of workers/professionals/etc., is old and well-known with most companies and organizations processing payments/wages/etc., in this way) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 83, Gulzar discloses the method of claim 82, but neither Gulzar nor Thompson explicitly state wherein the ratings system module includes a user input configured to allow the facility to enter a rating for the professional related to a performance of the professional.
Analogous art Elenbaas discloses wherein the ratings system module includes a user input configured to allow the facility to enter a rating for the professional related to a performance of the professional (¶¶ 0179 [a worker's…score on on-time performance rates], 0180-0181 [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…overall satisfaction ratings are used on tasks that have subjective elements in the task…[i]nputs from the job owners may be 10-Likert point scale asked of job owners…performance…satisfaction ratings], 0186 [reputation score manager…updated reputation scores with ratings of the user…in systems]; see also 0276-0280 [ work management server 160 includes a method of mixing quality standard evaluations from external and internal sources]; and Table 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Gulzar in view of Thompson wherein the ratings system module includes a user input configured to allow the facility to enter a rating for the professional related to a performance of the professional as taught by analogous art Elenbaas in order to continually match and keep/get the best candidates since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Elenbaas (rating performances of workers/professionals/etc., is old and well-known with most companies and organizations processing payments/wages/etc., in this way) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 86-91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gulzar (US 2020/0005935).
As per claim 86, Gulzar discloses a method of providing scheduling services using a computing device, comprising:
the computing device communicating inputted information to at least one remote server (figs. 1-6 and 38; ¶¶ 0095 [Email…and text are available channels], 0106 [email or text notification; see with 0139-0142 [capable of receiving and sending data over a network…communication medium… configured to communicate a message, such as through email, short message service (SMS), multimedia message service (MMS), instant messaging (IM)]]);
based on the inputted information, accessing scheduling information from a plurality of facilities accessible to the at least one remote server (figs. 1-6 and 38; ¶¶ 0010 [on-demand…shift scheduling], 0025 [scheduling step], 0054 [creating…schedule], 0080+ [scheduling…on-demand], 0017; see also 0080-0090 [gives example of need and demand based scheduling of workers in a healthcare facility], 0125-0127);
generating a plurality of available shifts from the plurality of facilities (¶¶ 0009 [availability…shift], 0027 [searching, inviting, and confirming shifts …shift types…existing shift allocation], 0081 [shifts are required to be filled]); and
allowing a user via the computing device to accept one of the plurality of shifts from the plurality of facilities (¶¶ 0120 [waiting…acceptance by the worker], 0124 [confirmation by…worker; see also 018], 0130 [contact…candidate… announces all the parameters of the shift…recipient of the call can respond by either declining or accepting the shift]; see also 0010 [offer acceptance]).
As per claim 87, Gulzar discloses the method of claim 86, further comprising sending a notification to one of the plurality of facilities that one of the plurality of shifts was accepted (¶¶ 0014-0019 [administrator submits (information)…manages…calendar…displays…shifts…compliance managers…suppliers…candidates…workers…alerts during onboard (based on…offer acceptance, etc.,)]).
As per claim 88, Gulzar discloses the method of claim 86, wherein the at least one remote server is configured for access by a plurality of distinct users (figs. 1-6 and 38; ¶¶ 0009-0010 [shift provisioning…MSP system…manage unique business relationships between healthcare facility and suppliers, (2) An ecosystem of suppliers and their healthcare workers shared across all MSPs…on-demand shift scheduling…multi-dimensional scheduling], 0014-0019 [administrator submits (information)…manages…calendar…displays…shifts…compliance managers…suppliers…candidates…workers…alerts during onboard (based on inputting additional documents, offer acceptance, etc.,); see with 0089-0090 [MSP platform has a powerful Collaborative…Platform…request…workers…brokers…workers…all stakeholders…candidates…suppliers…available…scheduling…shifts]]).
As per claim 89, Gulzar discloses the method of claim 86, wherein the inputted information includes one of facility geography location, dates, and payment (¶¶ 0009 [date], 0025, 0027 [shift…date…time]; also see 0011 [location…national and regional], 0082-0087).
As per claim 90, Gulzar discloses the scheduling system for filling working shifts at a health care facility, comprising:
a memory; one or more processors associated with the memory (figs. 1-6 and 38; ¶¶ 0095, 0139-0142, 0144 [computing device…memories], 0149-0153 [processing unit…memory module]);
a scheduling component executable by the one or more processors configured to generate a plurality of available shifts to be filed, wherein each of the plurality of shifts has at least one specified parameter associated therewith (see citations of claim 72 above and also see figs. 1-6 and 38; ¶¶ 0009 [availability…shift], 0010 [on-demand…shift scheduling], 0025 [scheduling step], 0027 [searching, inviting, and confirming shifts …shift types…existing shift allocation], 0054 [creating…schedule], 0080+ [scheduling…on-demand; with 0081 [shifts are required to be filled]], 0017; see also 0080-0090 [gives example of need and demand based scheduling of workers in a healthcare facility], 0125-0127);
a user input allowing a plurality of different users to access the scheduling component and select one of the plurality of available shifts (figs. 1-6 and 38; ¶¶ 0009-0010 [shift provisioning…MSP system…manage unique business relationships between healthcare facility and suppliers, (2) An ecosystem of suppliers and their healthcare workers shared across all MSPs…on-demand shift scheduling…multi-dimensional scheduling], 0014-0019 [administrator submits (information)…manages…calendar…displays…shifts…compliance managers…suppliers…candidates…workers…alerts during onboard (based on inputting additional documents, offer acceptance, etc.,); see with 0089-0090 [MSP platform has a powerful Collaborative…Platform…request…workers…brokers…workers…all stakeholders…candidates…suppliers…available…scheduling…shifts]], 0027-0029; see also 0081 [with 0089-0092]).
As per claim 91, Gulzar discloses the scheduling system according to claim 90, wherein the at least one specified parameter includes experience required, expertise required, health care facility information, or payment information (¶¶ 0010 [healthcare facilities…ecosystem…integrated workflow…interview scheduling, offer acceptance and contract compliance, credentialing, health record audits, HR acceptance, Health Services acceptance, facility and departmental orientation scheduling, and orientation delivery, (5) A tracking mechanism for all contingent staff for managing their employment lifecycle, history, and real-time compliance information, (6) Real-time virtual calendar of contract staff across multiple employers for day-to-day on-demand shift scheduling, (7) Multi-dimensional scheduling view to instantly schedule the most eligible candidate, and (8) Automated timecard generation, with mobile clock-in/clock-out], 0012-0013, 0014 [Profile elements that can be submitted include Licenses, Certificates, Identification, Education, Employment History, References, Skills/Specialty Assessment Worksheet, Confidentiality and HIPAA Form, Yearly Competency Assessment], 0079 [skill set]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the pertinent prior art is as follows:
Avats (US 2016/0275439): Directed, in part, to a system and methods for human resources management and efficient, online and mobile guidance on assisting job seekers in locating and securing job opportunities. More specifically, the present invention relates to a system and methods for performing substitute fulfillment, including identifying acceptable substitute employees/professionals, job opportunity review, real time employee availability, skill set review for employers/clients, appointment scheduling and establishing network connections amongst employers/clients and employees/professionals for both current and future job opportunities. Even more specifically, the present invention relates to building experience hours through successive work experience, establishing network connections and securing employment through historical connections among subscriber users and in optimizing staffing to accommodate for peak and non-peak business hours. Further, the present invention provides methods and a system for optimizing scheduling for available employment shifts through geolocation and internet sources.
O'Malley (US 2011/0276507): Provides for locating resources and providing recruitment information. Including a memory device for storing the information regarding a at least one resource, a at least one resource criteria, a at least one resource match, and a at least one processing device for processing information regarding the information, criteria, resource and match. In one aspect, the processing device utilizes information regarding a at least one job opening, an applicant's contract, an interviewer's available date, an interviewer available time, and an interview schedule, stored in the memory device, and further wherein the processing device generates a message containing information regarding at least one of a job opening, an interview schedule, an interviewer, an applicant's contract, a date and a time, wherein the message is responsive to the job interview request, and a transmitter for transmitting the message to a communication device associated with an individual in real-time.
Henley (US 2011/0022479): Includes one or more transaction processing servers that interface and communicate over the Internet with client computer systems of prospective online consumers, medical and professional/licensed services providers and a plurality of related information databases. The transaction processing system handles online communications and procedures for conducting auctions for delivery of proffered medical and professional/licensed services and maintains a registration database of service providers and online prospective consumers/bidders. Medical and professional/licensed services providers may include licensed doctors/nurses, licensed veterinary doctors/technicians as well as conventional homecare/hospice providers, physical therapy providers, babysitting and other professional caretaker services that can provided to/for man or animal. The online proffered services may include conventional medical treatment and/or veterinary services provided for animals, pets or other creatures. A professional license authentication/qualifier engine is provided which transparently and automatically researches, verifies and updates professional credentials, accreditations and background information of each professional service provider upon registration of that service provider with the transaction system, and makes that information available to prospective registered bidders online.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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.
/Gurkanwaljit Singh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625