DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 16 December 2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
The following is a FINAL office action upon examination of application number 18/597521. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
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 Amendment
In the response filed 16 December 2025, Applicant amended claims 1 – 3, 12, 15, and 18 – 20.
Amendments to claims 1 – 3, 12, 15, and 18 – 20 are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection. Therefore, the 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims 1 – 20 are maintained.
Amendment to claims 2, 3, 12, and 15 is sufficient to overcome the 35 USC § 112 rejection. Therefore, the 35 USC § 112 rejection of claims 2, 3, 12, and 15 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that claims are not directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims are not “technology driven” as Applicant argues. Rather, the technology claimed acts as “apply it” to otherwise abstract functionality that does not require any technology to be performed. With regard to step 1 analysis, generating training data and models is mathematical concept, and can be done, albeit slower, without technology. Labeling the model as machine learning does not make it require technology when the actual learning of the algorithm is not claimed. Training a model could be as simple as updating a database to associate certain inputs with certain outputs. This also leads into the step 2A arguments that claims are integrated into practical application including improvement in computer functionality, technology, or technical field. In these instant claims, there is arguably an improvement to the business method, but not to the computers, any technology, or any technical field. Similarly, they are not rooted in technology as steps can be performed without it. With respect to step 2B, Applicant describes functions such as generating work schedules as technical operations. This is not the case as, again, the functions claimed do not require technology to be performed.
In the remarks regarding independent claims 1 and 20, Applicant argues that amended limitations are not taught by the prior art. Examiner agrees. The prior art rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “statistically significant effect” in independent claims 1 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “statistically significant effect” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The independent claims recite generating work attributes model for an agent, receiving shift data describing evaluation shifts worked by the agent, determining therefrom values for shift parameters associated with each of the evaluation shifts, determining an adherence score of the agent for each of the evaluation shifts in relation to the adherence metric based on the shift data, the performance score indicating how closely the agent’s actual activities during the corresponding evaluation shift conform to expected work behaviors, creating a training dataset that includes training samples for respective ones of the evaluation shifts, wherein, each training sample includes the determined values of the shift parameters paired with the adherence score achieved in relation to the adherence metric for one of the evaluation shifts, and training the work attributes model for the agent using the training dataset, determining a key shift parameter and the determined value for the parameter which is a shift parameter determined by the model to have a statistically significant effect on the performance of the agent for the adherence metric, transmitting the determined value for the key shift parameter to an agent scheduler, generating a work schedule for the agent covering future shifts that takes into account the determined value for the key shift parameter. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance section 2106 of the MPEP (hereinafter, MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method and the system are directed to an eligible categories of subject matter. Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A prong 1 of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of business relations such as shift scheduling and worker performance, which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106. The claimed invention also recites an abstract idea that falls within the mental processes grouping, as independent claims describe receiving data and monitoring performance of an agent, which are observations. Additionally, the mathematical concepts grouping is recited, as claims describe generating a mathematical model and training that model. The limitations reciting the abstract idea in independent claims 1 and 20 are generating work attributes model for an agent, receiving shift data describing evaluation shifts worked by the agent, determining therefrom values for shift parameters associated with each of the evaluation shifts, determining an adherence score of the agent for each of the evaluation shifts in relation to the adherence metric based on the shift data, the performance score indicating how closely the agent’s actual activities during the corresponding evaluation shift conform to expected work behaviors, creating a training dataset that includes training samples for respective ones of the evaluation shifts, wherein, each training sample includes the determined values of the shift parameters paired with the adherence score achieved in relation to the adherence metric for one of the evaluation shifts, and training the work attributes model for the agent using the training dataset, determining a key shift parameter and the determined value for the parameter which is a shift parameter determined by the model to have a statistically significant effect on the performance of the agent for the adherence metric, transmitting the determined value for the key shift parameter to an agent scheduler, generating a work schedule for the agent covering future shifts that takes into account the determined value for the key shift parameter.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to computer implementation, automated modeling process, automated agent scheduling application, machine learning model having a neural network, autoencoder machine learning model, automated messaging, a processor, and a memory, to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: computer implementation, automated modeling process, automated agent scheduling application, machine learning model having a neural network, autoencoder machine learning model, automated messaging, a processor, and a memory. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and it is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of further defining parameter criteria, further defining the adherence metric, and generating work schedules and shifts, by way of examples, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA GURSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7am to 5pm EST.
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 at 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.
/AMANDA GURSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights