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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 28 March 2024.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Examiner Notes on Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 USC 101 and therefore are not allowable. However, should the applicant amend the claims to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101, the claims would be allowable.
Examiner notes that after reviewing the specification, Examiner does not have any suggestions for amendments that would overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101 at this time.
Claims 6-7 contain potentially allowable subject matter but dependent upon a base claim rejected under 35 USC 103, but rejection under 35 USC 103 will be withdrawn if the independent claims are rewritten to include all of the limitations of the claims 6-7 and any intervening claims into the independent claims because this prior art of record does not teach the limitations of claims 6-7 as noted below.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of potentially allowable subject matter: The prior art of record (Kasib et al. (US 2012/0016711 A1, hereinafter “Kasib”) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2016/0342929 A1, hereinafter “Tanaka”) does not specifically disclose: wherein the shrinkage calculator comprising: (I) calculating a total duration of the interval-time by multiplying duration of the interval-time by a number of agents in the SU; and (ii) calculating the shrinkage parameter according to formula III: (III) shrinkage parameter = (Wal * predicted adherence parameter + W2 * coaching parameter + W3 * time-off parameter) / total duration * 100, whereby: the total duration is the calculated total duration, the predicted adherence parameter is the yielded predicted adherence parameter, the coaching parameter is the yielded coaching parameter, the time-off parameter is the yielded time-off parameter, and the W1, W2, W3 are weights ranging from '0' to '1' and a sum of all weights is '1'; wherein the computerized-method is further comprising configuring the UI that is associated the WFM application to receive the weights.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent Claims 1 and 9
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”) on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 1 and 9 are directed to a method and a system which are statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One – Exemplary Claim 1 recites: optimizing staffing of a working-shift during a date range by predicting an adherence parameter of the working-shift based on a Scheduling Unit (SU), ..that is associated to a Workforce Management (WFM) application to receive: a. date range; b. SU; and c. activity code for the working-shifts, for the staffing, wherein there are one or more working-shifts during the date range, for each interval-time in each working-shift in the one or more working-shifts: (ii) a forecast adherence engine to yield the predicted adherence parameter; (iii) a coaching aggregation engine to yield a coaching parameter; (iv) a time-off aggregation engine to yield a time-off parameter; (v) a shrinkage calculator based on the predicted adherence parameter, the aggregated coaching parameter, and the aggregated time-off parameter, to yield a shrinkage parameter, wherein the shrinkage calculator comprising: a. calculating a total duration of the interval-time by multiplying duration of the interval-time by a number of agents in the SU and b. calculating the shrinkage parameter according to formula I:(I) shrinkage parameter = (WI * predicted adherence parameter + W2 * coaching parameter + W3 * time-off parameter) /total duration * 100,whereby the total duration is the calculated total duration, the predicted adherence parameter is the yielded predicted adherence parameter, the coaching parameter is the yielded coaching parameter, the time-off parameter is the yielded time-off parameter, and the WI, W2, W3 are weights ranging from '0' to '1' and a sum of all weights is '1'; (vi) the WFM to automatically schedule staffing for the interval-time based on the yielded shrinkage parameter; and (vii) after all time-intervals in each working-shift has been scheduled staffing, storing the working- shift in a database that is associated to the WFM application and configuring the WFM application to automatically trigger a notification to each agent that has been scheduled the working-shift..” These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to “organizing human activity” because they are directed to steps for optimizing staffing for a work shift which is a “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers including commercial or legal interactions or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people , then it falls within the “organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, the claims are directed toward a “mathematical concepts” because they are directed toward calculations and aggregations and are further expanded on in the dependent claims 2-8 which fall under mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations which are a mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 - The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1 includes the following additional elements: one or more processors, a User Interface (UI) associated with a Workforce Management (WFM) application and a database. Merely stating that the step is performed by a computer component results in “apply it’ on a computer (MPEP 2106.05f). The elements of a processor a User Interface (UI) and a database are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims describe how to generally “apply” the concept of . The specification shows that the additional elements of one or more processors, a User Interface (UI) associated with a Workforce Management (WFM) application and a database are merely used to: optimizing staffing of a working-shift during a date range by predicting an adherence parameter of the working-shift based on a Scheduling Unit (SU) as described above. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing implementation facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 9 is directed to A computerized-system for optimizing staffing of a working-shift during a date range by predicting adherence parameter of the working-shift based on a Scheduling Unit (SU), which is a statutory category. Claim 9 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2; and step 2b. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 are not directed to any new additional claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims to be part of the abstract idea. In this case, the claims are rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2; and step 2b. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive based on the amendments.
With regard to applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection that the claim elements provide meaningful limitations to transform the alleged abstract idea into a practical application of the alleged abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Because the current application is configuring the WFM to automatically schedule staffing for the interval-time based on the yielded shrinkage parameter and after all time-intervals in each working-shift has been scheduled staffing, storing the working-shift in a database that is associated to the WFM application and configuring the WFM application to automatically trigger a notification to each agent that has been scheduled the working-shift. Further, the Applicant asserts that claims 1 and 9 include a link of the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment, by the operations mentioned above.
Examiner disagrees. As noted in the rejection above, the claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to “organizing human activity” because they are directed to steps for optimizing staffing for a work shift which is a “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers including commercial or legal interactions or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people , then it falls within the “organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, the claims are directed toward a “mathematical concepts” because they are directed toward calculations and aggregations and are further expanded on in the dependent claims 2-8 which fall under mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations which are a mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, the claims includes the several computer elements. Merely stating that the step is performed by a computer component results in “apply it’ on a computer (MPEP 2106.05f). The elements of a processor a User Interface (UI) and a database are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims describe how to generally “apply” the concept of . The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing implementation facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-6729. 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.
/PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624