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 08 April 2026.
Claims 6-7 have been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Examiner Notes on Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 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 again, Examiner still does not have any suggestions for amendments that would overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101 at this time.
Reasons for the Indication of Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
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 = (W1 * 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 1-5 and 8-9 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 the UI is further configured to receive weights W!,W2, and W3, 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 at a scheduling-unit and interval-time level; (iii) a coaching aggregation engine to yield a coaching parameter at a scheduling-unit and interval-time level; (iv) a time-off aggregation engine to yield a time-off parameter at a scheduling-unit and interval-time level; (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 by adjusting 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 2-5 and 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 because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP $2106.04(d)(1) and $2106.05 (a-c &e-h).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for optimizing staffing for a work shift and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP $2106.04 and $21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP $2106.04 and $2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP $2106.04(d)(1) and $2106$2106.05 (a & e). Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP $2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. The current invention is directed toward optimizing staffing for a work shift. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
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 for optimizing staffing for a work shift. 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. Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than 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 2-5 and 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. Claims 1-5 and 8-9 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
With regard to applicants’ arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection that the claims as amended are not directed to organizing human activity or mathematical concepts because the claims are directed to a specific machine-implemented WFM workflow in which WFM
data is processed at a scheduling-unit and interval-time level, a shrinkage parameter is calculated
using weighted system-generated parameters, and the WFM is configured to automatically schedule
staffing by adjusting staffing for the interval-time based on the yielded shrinkage parameter, Examiner disagrees. As stated in the claim itself and the specification, the claims are directed toward optimizing staffing of a working-shift during a date range. The claims uses a UI to received data that is used to make predictions about adherence parameters of the working-shift. The claims use processors, however, 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 a method that automatically configures and operates a Workforce Management (WFM) system. 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.
With regard to applicants’ arguments that the claim limitations impose meaningful limits on any alleged abstract idea. The shrinkage parameter is not merely a number generated for review by a user. It is applied by the WFM system to automatically adjust staffing for the interval-time. The claim therefore recites a practical application in the operation of the WFM system, rather than merely using a computer as a tool to perform a staffing calculation, Examiner disagrees. The claims are directed toward a “mathematical concept” because they are directed toward calculations and aggregations and are further expanded on in the dependent claims 2-5 and 8 which fall under mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations which are a mathematical concepts. These calculations are used to calculate the parameters that are used by the system to schedule the staff for the working-shift. Therefore, automation of these calculations are used to improve the business process and not provide a technical solution to change an internal state of the system and is not a practical application but instead is an improved business process. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea without integrating the idea into a practical application.
With regard to applicant’s argument that the specification supports a practical application and claim 1 now expressly recites that the forecast adherence engine, coaching aggregation engine, and time-off aggregation engine yield respective parameters at a scheduling-unit and interval-time level, that the UI receives the weights W1, W2, and W3 used in the shrinkage calculation, and that the WFM automatically schedules staffing by adjusting staffing for the interval-time based on the yielded shrinkage parameter. Thus, Claim 1 is not merely "apply it on a computer." Claim 1 specifies how WFM-system data is processed and how the resulting shrinkage parameter is applied to automatically generate adjusted staffing for a particular interval-time, examiner disagrees. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, applicant has added more abstract elements and not any new additional elements. 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 because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP $2106.04(d)(1) and $2106.05 (a-c &e-h).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for optimizing staffing for a work shift and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP $2106.04 and $21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP $2106.04 and $2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP $2106.04(d)(1) and $2106$2106.05 (a & e). Instead, the recited additional elements above merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP $2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. The current invention is directed toward optimizing staffing for a work shift. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicants’ limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
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 directed to improving operation of a WFM system by replacing manually entered shrinkage values and reactive adherence processing with an automated interval-level workflow that generates shrinkage based on predicted adherence, coaching, and time-off parameters, and then applies that generated shrinkage parameter to automatically adjust staffing for the interval-time. 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 concept” 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 concept. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, the claims includes 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.
With regard to applicants’ arguments that the ordered combination of claim elements amounts to significantly more than any judicial exception, Examiner disagrees. The claims 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).” Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. The current invention is directed toward optimizing staffing for a work shift. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicants’ limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 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. Claims 1-5 and 8-9 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights