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
1. This Final Office action is in reply to the Applicant amendment filed on 27 October 2025.
2. Claims 1, 6, have been amended. Claims 5 and 10 are cancelled.
3. Claims 1-4, 6-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
In the previous office action, Claims 1-10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea). Applicants have not amended now Claims 1-4, 6-9 to provide statutory support and the rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/combination of claims filed 27 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection for Claims 1-4, 6-9, Applicant argues that: (1) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Still commensurate to the two-part subject matter eligibility framework decision in the Federal court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., (Alice), 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update), and the new “July 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, including on Artificial Intelligence”, and the Examiner details the maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the below rejection with further explanation. Applicant traverses this rejection in view that as amended, Applicant states that based on: “As explained in the background section of the application, "Staffing-shrinkage plays a crucial role in refining the forecast accuracy. If it is ignored or calculated incorrectly, the forecast itself may be inaccurate. Accurate staffing shrinkage adjustments to the staffing plan may help create a more precise picture of the actual number of agents required to handle customer demand. Staffing-shrinkage is also a factor used to monitor agent adherence to their assigned schedules. Adherence compares the actual time an agent spends handling contacts to their scheduled work time. Without proper staffing-shrinkage calculations, it becomes difficult to determine whether agents are adhering to their schedules effectively, leading to potential productivity and performance problems. Workforce managers use staffing-shrinkage data to plan and allocate resources effectively. They use this information to determine the ideal number of 7 Vaibhav CHOBE APPLICANT(S): 18/596,697 SERIAL NO.: March 6, 2024 FILED: Page 8 agents required for different time intervals throughout the day. Incorrect or missing staffing-shrinkage data can result in misallocated resources, causing service level gaps during peak demand periods. Staffing-shrinkage data is also important in optimizing agent schedules. Without it, it becomes challenging to create schedules that maximize agent utilization and ensure the right coverage during high-demand periods." The Applicant asserts that claims 1 and 6 are eligible, however, to advance prosecution, the Applicant has amended the claims for clarity. The Applicant asserts that the additional claim elements provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Moreover, the Applicant asserts that Claim 1 as a whole integrates an abstract idea into a practical application, by configuring the WFM application to update staffing level in the future staffing plan, based on the determined staffing-shrinkage percentage and storing the updated future staffing plan in a WFM database. The updating of the staffing level of the future staffing plan, based on the determined staffing-shrinkage percentage, is performed by the WFM application adding number of agents to the future staffing plan. Therefore, the claimed invention is not merely directed to advertising or organizing human activity. Rather, describe a specific, concrete, and technical method for predicting a staffing-shrinkage percentage in a time-slot during a future staffing plan in a contact center that is integrated with a WFM application, and utilizing a computerized device for updating staffing level in the future staffing plan. These components are arranged in a non-conventional and non-generic manner. The synergy of the UI that is associated to the WFM application, and update staffing level in the future staffing plan, based on the determined staffing-shrinkage percentage” (see Remarks/Arguments pages 7-8). However the Examiner respectfully disagrees. For further clarification and in detail below, the Examiner notes the claims still recite:
For Step 1: Claims 6-9 are focused to a statutory category of invention, namely a “system” set. However “method” Claims 1-4 still do not have any computer architecture components recited within the claim limitations to provide statutory support, meaning the claims are part of a mental process. Applicants should at least amend independent Claim 1 to at least include a computer processor as recited in system set 6-9. Despite this failure to pass Step 1, the Examiner proceeds to the next steps of the analysis.
For Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1-4, 6-9 recite limitations that set forth the abstract ideas, namely, the claims as a whole recite the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite steps for, generally, processing information by:
“(i) receiving via a User Interface that is associated to a Workforce Management (WFM) application, one or more skills for the future staffing plan and the time-slot;
(ii) calculating a historic-shrinkage percentage during a preconfigured period based on agents’ time-offs and understaffing-levels during the preconfigured period;
(iii) determining the staffing-shrinkage percentage in the time-slot during the future staffing plan based on the calculated historic-shrinkage percentage;
(iv) configuring the WFM application to update staffing level in the future staffing plan, based on the determined staffing-shrinkage percentage and storing the updated future staffing plan in a WEM database, wherein the updating of the staffing level of the future staffing level of the future staffing plan based on the determining staffing-shrinkage percentage is performed by adding number of agents to the future staffing plan”
These abstract idea limitations identified above under their broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as a whole, cover performance of their limitations as the 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter:
Mathematical concepts – [mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations]: Steps (ii) and (iii) involve "calculating a historic-shrinkage percentage" and "determining the staffing-shrinkage percentage." These are mathematical algorithms or formulas used to derive a numerical value from existing data sets (time-offs and understaffing levels).
b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – [managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)]: The overall process of "staffing plan" management and "adding number of agents" to a schedule falls under fundamental economic practices or commercial/legal interactions. Managing personnel schedules is a routine business activity that can be performed manually by a human (mental process or pen-and-paper).
c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Here the logic of observing past absences ("historic-shrinkage") to predict future needs ("future staffing plan") is a type of reasoning that a human supervisor could perform in their mind or on a spreadsheet without a computer.
Prong 1 focuses solely on whether the claim "recites" an abstract idea. The claim specifically names the steps of receiving data, calculating percentages, and updating a plan based on those percentages. Because these are computational logic and business-organizing steps, they are considered abstract under the Guidance. Even though they are performed "via a User Interface" or stored in a "WEM database" these technical limitations are typically viewed as mere computer environments for the underlying abstract logic at this stage of the analysis.
In summary and additional to the above, the elements of the claim fall under the following recognized categories of abstract ideas: Mathematical Concepts: Mathematical relationships and formulas used to calculate shrinkage percentages. Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: Managing a workforce, scheduling employees, and business planning/optimization. Mental Processes: Concepts that can be performed in the human mind, such as predicting future needs based on historical data. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.
For Step 2A: Prong Two: Claims 1-4, 6-9: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claim 6 recites additional elements directed to “one or more processors; user interface; application; database”. Therefore, the claims contain computer components that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Independent Claim 1 has no additional elements. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because Claim 6 simply instructs the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. Independent Claim 1 has no additional elements. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h).
For Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 1-4, 6-9 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 nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of independent Claim 6’s “one or more processors; user interface; application; database”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Independent Claim 1 has no additional elements. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. In summary as indicated below through Steps 1-2B, the recitation of a computer (one or more processors) to perform the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant submits that: (2) Placiakis et al (Placiakis) (US 2014/0324499) and in view of Qazvinian et al. (Qazvinian) (US 11,715,053) does not teach or suggest in amended Claim 1: “skill-based filtering, multi-level shrinkage calculation, or integration of net-staffing understaffing levels in the shrinkage prediction, as the current application does” [see Remarks pages 9-11]. With regard to argument (2), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. This specific limitation is not specifically recited as such in the claim. However, as amended, the Examiner has provided additional clarification and citations from the current cited art of Placiakis as seen in the below maintained rejection. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. The Examiner has a duty and responsibility to the public and to Applicant to interpret the claims as broadly as reasonably possible during prosecution. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1 393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
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 1-4, 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process:
Step 1: Claims 6-9 are focused to a statutory category of invention, namely a “system” set. However “method” Claims 1-4 still do not have any computer architecture components recited within the claim limitations to provide statutory support, meaning the claims are part of a mental process. Applicants should at least amend independent Claim 1 to at least include a computer processor as recited in system set 6-9. Despite this failure to pass Step 1, the Examiner proceeds to the next steps of the analysis.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1-4, 6-9 recite limitations that set forth the abstract ideas, namely, the claims as a whole recite the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite steps for, generally, processing information by:
“(i) receiving via a User Interface that is associated to a Workforce Management (WFM) application, one or more skills for the future staffing plan and the time-slot;
(ii) calculating a historic-shrinkage percentage during a preconfigured period based on agents’ time-offs and understaffing-levels during the preconfigured period;
(iii) determining the staffing-shrinkage percentage in the time-slot during the future staffing plan based on the calculated historic-shrinkage percentage;
(iv) configuring the WFM application to update staffing level in the future staffing plan, based on the determined staffing-shrinkage percentage and storing the updated future staffing plan in a WEM database, wherein the updating of the staffing level of the future staffing level of the future staffing plan based on the determining staffing-shrinkage percentage is performed by adding number of agents to the future staffing plan”
These abstract idea limitations identified above under their broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as a whole, cover performance of their limitations as the 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter:
Mathematical concepts – [mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations]: Steps (ii) and (iii) involve "calculating a historic-shrinkage percentage" and "determining the staffing-shrinkage percentage." These are mathematical algorithms or formulas used to derive a numerical value from existing data sets (time-offs and understaffing levels).
b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – [managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)]: The overall process of "staffing plan" management and "adding number of agents" to a schedule falls under fundamental economic practices or commercial/legal interactions. Managing personnel schedules is a routine business activity that can be performed manually by a human (mental process or pen-and-paper).
c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Here the logic of observing past absences ("historic-shrinkage") to predict future needs ("future staffing plan") is a type of reasoning that a human supervisor could perform in their mind or on a spreadsheet without a computer.
Prong 1 focuses solely on whether the claim "recites" an abstract idea. The claim specifically names the steps of receiving data, calculating percentages, and updating a plan based on those percentages. Because these are computational logic and business-organizing steps, they are considered abstract under the Guidance. Even though they are performed "via a User Interface" or stored in a "WEM database" these technical limitations are typically viewed as mere computer environments for the underlying abstract logic at this stage of the analysis.
In summary and additional to the above, the elements of the claim fall under the following recognized categories of abstract ideas: Mathematical Concepts: Mathematical relationships and formulas used to calculate shrinkage percentages. Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: Managing a workforce, scheduling employees, and business planning/optimization. Mental Processes: Concepts that can be performed in the human mind, such as predicting future needs based on historical data. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.
Step 2A: Prong Two: Claims 1-4, 6-9: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claim 6 recites additional elements directed to “one or more processors; user interface; application; database”. Therefore, the claims contain computer components that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Independent Claim 1 has no additional elements. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because Claim 6 simply instructs the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. Independent Claim 1 has no additional elements. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h).
Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 1-4, 6-9 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 nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of independent Claim 6’s “one or more processors; user interface; application; database”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Independent Claim 1 has no additional elements. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
The Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery (e.g., see Applicants’ un-published Specification ¶’s 42-60) regarding using existing computer processors as well as program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored. “system 100A” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit and display data) and/or use computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-4, 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 2, 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Placiakis et al (Placiakis) (US 2014/0324499).
With regard to Claims 1, 6, Placiakis teaches a computerized-method/system for predicting a staffing-shrinkage percentage in a time-slot during a future staffing plan (a system and method for workforce management (WFM) for a contact center that takes into account planned and unplanned shrinkage (also referred to as overhead) of the workforce. Workforce management typically includes forecasting, scheduling, adherence monitoring, and performance analysis. Forecasting may involve prediction of workforce shrinkage, interaction volume, and average handling time, for a future period, whether that period is several hours, weeks, or months in the future) in a contact center (directed to a system and method for workforce management (WFM) for a contact center) (see at least paragraphs 3-10, 23-31), said computerized-method comprising one or more processors and a WFM database (see at least paragraphs 3-10, 23-31), said computerized-system comprising:
(i) receiving via a User Interface that is associated to a Workforce Management (WFM) application (workforce management (WFM)), one or more skills (skills, staffing requirements; agent’s individual skills) for the future staffing plan and the time-slot (In step 108, a determination is made as to whether a schedule is to be built. A supervisor may interface with the supervisor GUI provided by the WFM web component 22 to indicate that a schedule is desired for a particular time period, which may be a current time period or a period occurring in the future. If a schedule is to be built, the WFM builder 20, in step 110, generates agent assignments for the particular time period, including assignments of agents to different shifts, activities, and the like. Agent assignments are based on the forecast and configured to comply with any business constraints defined for the contact center) (see at least paragraphs 3-10, 23-31, 44);
(ii) calculating a historic-shrinkage percentage during a preconfigured period based on agents’ (step 102 of FIG. 2 for forecasting employee overhead for an up-coming forecast period may include analysis of historical data for recommending shrinkage values for this period. In this regard, the forecasting module may be configured with various parameters that should be analyzed for trends in order to recommend a shrinkage value for the up-coming forecast period. Such parameters may include, for example, the particular time period that is involved (e.g. particular day of the week, week of the month, and/or month of the year), special events, agent profiles, agent preferences) time-offs and understaffing-levels during the preconfigured period (patterns that may emerge for time periods, higher shrinkages may be observed on Fridays during the months that coincide with school vacations (e.g. June-August). Higher shrinkages may also be observed during those months associated with the flu season) (see at least paragraphs 54-61);
(iii) determining the staffing-shrinkage percentage in the time-slot during the future staffing plan based on the calculated historic-shrinkage percentage (the forecasting module may be configured to identify events that are scheduled to occur during an up-coming forecast period, and correlate those events to a particular type of shrinkage, level of shrinkage, and time period for the shrinkage, based on historical data patterns. For example, the forecasting module may identify, either automatically based on analysis of available information sources, or manually based on user input) (see at least paragraphs 54-61, 79);
(iv) configuring the WFM application to update staffing level in the future staffing plan, based on the determined staffing-shrinkage percentage and storing the updated future staffing plan in a WEM database (such values are automatically determined for a forecast period, and shrinkage fields associated with particular time intervals automatically populated with these values based on selected templates (also referred to as data files), historical analysis, and/or a combination of both. According to one embodiment, templates may be generated from scheduled shrinkage values that are input into a schedule when a schedule is built. As discussed above, schedules are built based on forecasts. The schedules may depict certain agents as being in a scheduled state which is not related to work. The schedule may also depict when and how long the agent was scheduled to be in that particular, non-working schedule state, which may be more or less than the forecast shrinkage value for that particular time period. The shrinkage values calculated from a particular schedule for each time interval may be stored in a template data file in the mass storage device 14 upon command by the supervisor. For example, if the supervisor feels that the scheduled shrinkage values are a good representation of shrinkage generally for the contact center, he or she may save the scheduled shrinkage values in a template and use them as forecast shrinkage values for a later forecasting period), wherein the updating of the staffing level of the future staffing level of the future staffing plan based on the determining staffing-shrinkage percentage is performed by adding number of agents to the future staffing plan ((3) existing agent schedules may have been manually adjusted; 4) additional agents may have been added into the schedule; or 5) meetings or other types of exceptions may have been added to the schedule) (see at least paragraphs 40-44, 61).
With regard to Claims 2, 7, Placiakis teaches wherein the calculating of the historic-shrinkage percentage during the preconfigured period comprising:
(i) calculating a staffing-shrinkage percentage of agents-level by (see at least paragraph 79):
a. retrieving agents time-offs during the preconfigured period from a schedule- change-request database (see at least paragraphs 54-61, 79);
b. filtering the retrieved agents time-offs based on the received one or more skills of corresponding agents and the time-off (see at least paragraphs 44-45);
c. calculating a mean of agents that took time-offs in the time-slot by identifying a total number of agents in the filtered agents time-offs and then dividing the identified total number of agents by a total number of time-slots in the filtered agents time-offs to yield an agent-level-shrinkage (see at least paragraphs 40-49, 54-61, 79);
(ii) calculating a staffing-shrinkage percentage of net-staffing level by (see at least paragraphs 49-61):
a. retrieving net-staffing data of a plurality of staffing plans during the preconfigured period, from a staffing-data database (see at least paragraph 49);
b. filtering the plurality of staffing plans based on the one or more skills of corresponding agents and understaffed time-slots in the time-slot (see at least paragraphs 40-49, 54-61, 79);
c. calculating a mean of understaffed time-slots by identifying a number of understaffed time-slots for the time-slot in the filtered plurality of staffing plans and then dividing a sum of understaffed-agents in all the identified number of understaffed time-slots by the total number of time-slots to yield a net-staffing- level-shrinkage (see at least paragraphs 40-49, 54-61, 79);
(iii) determining the historic-shrinkage percentage during the preconfigured period by calculating a mean of the agent-level-shrinkage and the net-staffing-level-shrinkage (see at least paragraphs 40-49, 54-61, 79).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries 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 3, 4, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Placiakis as seen above for Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 in view of Qazvinian et al. (Qazvinian) (US 11,715,053).
With regard to Claims 3, 8, Placiakis teaches wherein the determined staffing-shrinkage percentage is presented as a message via the UI that is associated to the WFM application by operating a service (staffing algorithm; Erlang algorithm; scheduling algorithm) with a prompt to yield the message (see at least paragraphs 38, 39-42, 61);
With regard to Claims 4, 9, Placiakis teaches wherein the operating of the service (staffing algorithm; Erlang algorithm; scheduling algorithm) is performed by generating a prompt by embedding the determined staffing-shrinkage percentage in a prompt-template and then executing with the prompt (see at least paragraphs 38, 39-42, 61);
Although Placiakis teaches the above various cited algorithms as a service to determine staffing-shrinkage percentages, Placiakis does not teach Generative Artificial Intelligence AI (GenAI)/the GenAI. Qazvinian teaches Generative Artificial Intelligence AI (GenAI)/the GenAI (Machine learning module 185 functions to perform various machine learning, deep learning, and/or artificial intelligence tasks within the system. Machine learning module 185 may comprise training module 186, risk assessment module 187 and explanation module 188. The machine learning module 185 may comprise decision trees such as, e.g., classification trees, regression trees, boosted trees, bootstrap aggregated decision trees, random forests, rotation forests or a combination thereof. Additionally or alternatively, machine learning module 185 may comprise neural networks (NN) such as, artificial neural networks (ANN), autoencoders, probabilistic neural networks (PNN), time delay neural networks (TDNN), convolutional neural networks (CNN), deep stacking networks (DSN), radial basis function networks (RBFN), general regression neural networks (GRNN), deep belief networks (DBN), deep neural networks (DNN), deep reinforcement learning (DRL), recurrent neural networks (RNN), fully recurrent neural networks (FRNN), Hopfield networks, Boltzmann machines, deep Boltzmann machines, self-organizing maps (SOM), learning vector quantizations (LUQ), simple recurrent networks (SRN), reservoir computing, echo state networks (ESN), long short-term memory networks (LSTM), bi-directional RNNs, hierarchical RNNs, stochastic neural networks, genetic scale models, committee of machines (CoM), associative neural networks (ASNN), instantaneously trained neural networks (ITNN), spiking neural networks (SNN), regulatory feedback networks, neocognitron networks, compound hierarchical-deep models, deep predictive coding networks (DPCN), multilayer kernel machines (MKM), cascade correlation networks (CCN), neuro-fuzzy networks, compositional pattern-producing networks, one-shot associative memory models, hierarchical temporal memory (HTM) models, holographic associative memory (HAM), neural Turing machines, or any combination thereof. Any other suitable neural networks or other machine learning techniques may be contemplated) in analogous art of predictions of employee attrition within an enterprise for the purposes of: “Some embodiments of the attrition prediction and mitigation system reduce voluntary employee attrition within an enterprise through the application of artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, neural networks or combinations thereof. The system may also provide a proactive and real-time risk assessment, as well as explanations and suggested actions to mitigate attrition risk. The system may gather data passively, obviating the requirement for constant human input” (see at least col. 5, lines 15-36; col. 7, line 1-col. 8, line16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the dynamic prediction of employee attrition as taught by Qazvinian in the system of Placiakis, 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Kosiba et al. (US 8,687,795)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624