DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection on May 28, 2026. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 28, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 5 and 12 have been canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 are presented for examination.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of Applicant’s response, Applicant states, “The claimed determination therefore requires processing multiple parameters in combination to decide eligibility before any further steps are performed. This operation is not a mental process. The claim requires monitoring a shift schedule for a set of agents and applying multiple parameters affecting staffing needs to determine eligibility.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since before the existence of computers, shifts have been scheduled for workers. A human user can take into account multiple constraints and coordinate the availability of multiple workers when creating a schedule.
Applicant further argues that a human cannot mentally perform the operations of the invention due to the detailed information displayed on the graphical user interface (pages 9-10 of Applicant’s response). Aside from the incorporation of the generic processing elements at a high level, the Examiner maintains that a human user could indeed facilitate the recited operations for shift swapping (even if the use of pen and paper is needed). Applicant presents no compelling argument that more than generic processing elements performing generic computing operations are required in the claims. The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Displaying various categories of information is what any generic GUI does, along with presenting information that is useful to a human. The claims do not present any technical improvements in the underlying technical operation of the GUI itself.
Applicant states, “The claim does not recite instructions for human interaction, but recites system operations that control how shift trade requests and counter shift trade requests are processed.” (Page 10 of Applicant’s response) Controlling shift trades affects when humans work, which is an example of managing human behavior and instructing humans when to work.
On pages 12-13 of the response, Applicant submits that “[t]he specification describes the improvement achieved by the claimed invention. Paragraphs [0005]-[0006] of the as-filed specification explain that existing systems only allow a target agent to accept or decline a shift trade request, requiring source agents to reinitiate requests multiple times with the same or different target agents to find a mutually agreeable shift trade.“ Applicant presents no evidence of a technical solution to a technical problem. Controlling who can initiate requests, trade shifts, etc. simply involves rules assigning permission to people. There are no specific technical details that implement such rules, for example, Simply conducting communications and receiving input and displaying output are generic operations that can be performed by a general-purpose processing device with display capabilities.
Applicant states, “The claimed invention does not merely collect or analyze data, but instead uses the computed parameters and GUI-driven selections to control the routing behavior of the shift trade workflow in real time.” (Page 13 of the response) Again, the GUI simply uses generic operations to send, receive, and display information. The claims do not present any specific technical solution to a technical problem or even any specific technical manner in which data is routed, for example. Improvements in working efficiency and quality would be achieved by such a process performed manually and, thus, not necessarily limited to benefits afforded by implementing a technical solution to a technical problem. Again, the processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Applicant submits that the claims present unconventional operations that prevent redundant processing (pages 15-16 of Applicant’s response). The Examiner points out that unconventional operations are evaluated in regard to the operations of the additional elements in Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility analysis. The claims lack such specific technical details. Most of the details of the claims speak to the identified abstract ideas. It is not clear which operations of the additional elements themselves Applicant feels are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility analysis focuses on operations specifically performed by the additional elements that are asserted to be not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Instead, aside from the additional elements generally facilitating operations at a high level, Applicant points to operations that could be performed by a human user (i.e., are part of a mental process) and operations that contribute to details of the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Regarding the art rejections, Applicant submits that “none of the references, alone or in combination, teach or suggest determining eligibility of a shift trade request using staffing needs and shift trade approval criteria before identifying tradeable shifts.” (Page 20 of Applicant’s response) The Lu reference has been introduced into the rejections in order to help address this feature.
On page 21 of the response, Applicant argues the following:
Applicant respectfully submits that an ordinary person skilled in the art would not modify the teachings of Tewari, Taheri, or Narasimhan to arrive at the claimed invention without the benefit of hindsight. The Examiner's rationale for combining the references "to facilitate more efficient, timely, and convenient interactions related to shift swaps" is a generic statement that does not provide a specific motivation to add a determination step before identifying tradeable shifts, or to implement a GUI displaying comparative shift information with accept/decline/counter options where the counter option triggers a counter shift trade request workflow. It is not sufficient to suggest that a person skilled in the art could modify the arrangement disclosed in the references; rather, there must be a clear motivation as to why a person skilled in the art would actually make such modifications without the benefit of hindsight.
The argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment.
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, 6-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to “counter shift trade request management” (Spec: ¶ 2) without significantly more.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes – The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Process (claims 8-11, 13-14), Apparatus (claims 1-4, 6-7), Article of Manufacture (claims 15-20)
Independent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claims 1, 8, 15] counter shift trade request management comprising:
monitoring a shift schedule for a set of agents using parameters affecting staffing needs and shift trade approval criteria, wherein shift trade requests and counter shift trade requests are submitted by an agent;
identifying a shift trade request from a source agent;
determining, using the parameters affecting staffing needs and shift trade approval criteria, that the shift trade request is eligible for shift trading;
identifying a set of tradeable shifts for the source agent based on determining that the shift trade request is eligible for shift trading;
sending the shift trade request and the set of tradeable shifts to a set of target agents, wherein the shift trade request and the set of tradeable shifts are displayed, wherein the displays present to each target agent of the set of target agents a shift that the target agent is currently assigned to work and a shift of the source agent, and provides selectable action options comprising at least an option to accept, an option to decline, and an option to counter the shift trade request;
receiving a counter shift trade request from a target agent from the set of target agents in response to the target agent selecting the option to counter the shift trade request, wherein the counter shift trade request comprises a tradeable shift within the set of tradeable shifts selected by the target agent;
sending the counter shift trade request to the source agent,
wherein the counter shift trade request is displayed; and
wherein when the source agent accepts the counter shift trade request, the shift schedule is updated based on the counter shift trade request; and
sending a schedule notification to the source agent and to the target agent regarding the updated shift schedule.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. Human users can go through the above-cited operations related to trading shifts and making sure that shift trades adhere to rules, present information on a display, etc. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to “counter shift trade request management” (Spec: ¶ 2), which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of managing personal behavior and interactions between people (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites a counter shift trade request management system comprising: at least one processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions stored in association therewith that are accessible to, and executable by, the at least one processor, to generally perform the recited operations. Claim 1 additionally recites that shift trade requests and counter shift trade requests are submitted by an agent through a graphical user interface; that the shift trade request and the set of tradeable shifts as well as currently assigned shifts are displayed through the graphical user interface, and that the counter shift trade request is displayed through the graphical user interface.
Claim 8 recites that shift trade requests and counter shift trade requests are submitted by an agent through a graphical user interface; that the shift trade request and the set of tradeable shifts as well as currently assigned shifts are displayed through the graphical user interface, and that the counter shift trade request is displayed through the graphical user interface.
Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions executable by at least one processor to generally perform the recited operations. Claim 15 additionally recites that shift trade requests and counter shift trade requests are submitted by an agent through a graphical user interface; that the shift trade request and the set of tradeable shifts as well as currently assigned shifts are displayed through the graphical user interface, and that the counter shift trade request is displayed through the graphical user interface.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 14, 60-63, 66).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claims 2, 9, 16] wherein the parameters comprise one or more of unplanned absenteeism, contact volume inflow, shift characteristics, skills needed, understaffing, overstaffing, or any combination thereof.
[Claims 3, 10, 17] wherein the parameters are determined by a contact center supervisor or administrator.
[Claims 4, 11, 18] wherein the shift trade request from the source agent may be a request to exchange a full shift assigned to the source agent, or a portion of a full shift assigned to the source agent.
[Claims 6, 13, 19] wherein, when a counter shift trade request from a target agent is not received or when the source agent does not accept a counter shift trade request from a target agent, the operations further comprise closing the shift trade request.
[Claims 7, 14, 20] wherein the operations further comprise sending the schedule notification to a supervisor of the source agent or of the target agent.
The dependent claims present additional details of the abstract ideas identified in regard to the independent claims above.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. Human users can go through the above-cited operations related to trading shifts and making sure that shift trades adhere to rules, present information on a display, etc. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to “counter shift trade request management” (Spec: ¶ 2), which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of managing personal behavior and interactions between people (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims incorporate the additional elements of the independent claim from which each depends.
Claims 1 and its dependent claims recite a counter shift trade request management system comprising: at least one processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions stored in association therewith that are accessible to, and executable by, the at least one processor, to generally perform the recited operations. Claim 1 additionally recites that shift trade requests and counter shift trade requests are submitted by an agent through a graphical user interface; that the shift trade request and the set of tradeable shifts as well as currently assigned shifts are displayed through the graphical user interface, and that the counter shift trade request is displayed through the graphical user interface.
Claim 8 recites that shift trade requests and counter shift trade requests are submitted by an agent through a graphical user interface; that the shift trade request and the set of tradeable shifts as well as currently assigned shifts are displayed through the graphical user interface, and that the counter shift trade request is displayed through the graphical user interface.
Claims 15 and its dependent claims recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions executable by at least one processor to generally perform the recited operations. Claim 15 additionally recites that shift trade requests and counter shift trade requests are submitted by an agent through a graphical user interface; that the shift trade request and the set of tradeable shifts as well as currently assigned shifts are displayed through the graphical user interface, and that the counter shift trade request is displayed through the graphical user interface.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 14, 60-63, 66).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 11,010,699) in view of Narasimhan et al. (US 2005/0096962) in view of Nathanson et al. (US 8,266,032).
[Claim 1] Lu discloses a counter shift trade request management system (abstract; In general, a counter shift trade request may include a proposed shift for the targeted agent to give up to the source/requesting agent.) comprising:
at least one processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions stored in association therewith that are accessible to, and executable by, the at least one processor (col. 11: 56 – col. 12: 67), to perform operations which comprise:
monitoring a shift schedule for a set of agents using parameters affecting staffing needs and shift trade approval criteria, wherein shift trade requests and counter shift trade requests are submitted by an agent through a graphical user interface (figs. 10-12:
PNG
media_image1.png
160
202
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
528
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
406
260
media_image3.png
Greyscale
;
col. 8: 53-59 – “Turning to FIG. 10, an illustration of a detail view box for requesting a shift swap overlaid on a calendar image is depicted in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. Calendar image 1000 is an example of one implementation of calendar image 224 in FIG. 1. Calendar image 1000 may be displayed in response to selecting control element 916 in employee dashboard 900 in FIG. 9.”; col. 9: 10-17 – “Shift search interface 1100 is configured to allow an operator to specify parameters for identifying available work shifts of other persons that would be acceptable for swapping. For example, without limitation, shift search interface may 1100 prompt an operator to enter one or more of dates for acceptable shifts, locations of acceptable shifts, job type of acceptable shifts, name of other person with acceptable shifts, or any other appropriate parameters.”; In general, a counter shift trade request may include a proposed shift for the targeted agent to give up to the source/requesting agent.);
identifying a shift trade request from a source agent (col. 9: 3-9 – “Turning to FIG. 11, an illustration of a shift search interface is depicted in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. Shift search interface 1100 may displayed in response to the selection of shift swap request control element 1008 in detail view box 1004 in FIG. 10. For example, without limitation, shift search interface 1100 may be displayed overlaid on calendar image 1000 in FIG. 10.”);
determining, using the parameters affecting staffing needs and shift trade approval criteria, that the shift trade request is eligible for shift trading (col. 9: 10-26 – “Shift search interface 1100 is configured to allow an operator to specify parameters for identifying available work shifts of other persons that would be acceptable for swapping. For example, without limitation, shift search interface may 1100 prompt an operator to enter one or more of dates for acceptable shifts, locations of acceptable shifts, job type of acceptable shifts, name of other person with acceptable shifts, or any other appropriate parameters. After entering appropriate parameters in shift search interface 1100, a search for available shifts that satisfy the parameters may be initiated by selecting search button 1102. For example, without limitation, available shifts that satisfy the identified parameters may be identified by the search and listed in an appropriate manner. An operator may then identify a shift for swapping from the listed shifts. A shift swap request then may be sent to the person that is currently assigned to perform the identified shift.“);
identifying a set of tradeable shifts for the source agent based on determining that the shift trade request is eligible for shift trading (col. 9: 10-26 – “Shift search interface 1100 is configured to allow an operator to specify parameters for identifying available work shifts of other persons that would be acceptable for swapping. For example, without limitation, shift search interface may 1100 prompt an operator to enter one or more of dates for acceptable shifts, locations of acceptable shifts, job type of acceptable shifts, name of other person with acceptable shifts, or any other appropriate parameters. After entering appropriate parameters in shift search interface 1100, a search for available shifts that satisfy the parameters may be initiated by selecting search button 1102. For example, without limitation, available shifts that satisfy the identified parameters may be identified by the search and listed in an appropriate manner. An operator may then identify a shift for swapping from the listed shifts. A shift swap request then may be sent to the person that is currently assigned to perform the identified shift.“);
sending the shift trade request and the set of tradeable shifts to a set of target agents, wherein the shift trade request and the set of tradeable shifts are displayed through the graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface displays to each target agent of the set of target agents a shift that the target agent is currently assigned to work and a shift of the source agent, and provides selectable action options comprising at least an option to accept and an option to decline the shift trade request (fig. 12; col. 9: 39-54 – “In response to the selection of day box 1202, detail view box 1206 for the day corresponding to day box 1202 is displayed adjacent to day box 1202. In this example, shift information 1208 for a work shift scheduled for the day, shift information 1210 for a requested shift swap, and shift swap request accept control element 1212 for accepting the shift swap are displayed in detail view box 1206. For example, without limitation, shift swap request accept control element 1212 may comprise a virtual button or other appropriate control element. In response to the selection of shift swap request accept control element 1212, the information in the electronic calendar may be updated to reflect the changes in scheduled work shifts. Detail view box 1206 also may include shift swap request reject control element 1214, to allow an operator to positively reject the requested shift swap.”); and
wherein when the source agent accepts the shift trade request, the shift schedule is updated based on the counter shift trade request (col. 9: 48-51 – “In response to the selection of shift swap request accept control element 1212, the information in the electronic calendar may be updated to reflect the changes in scheduled work shifts.“; col 11: 25-37 – “Process 1500 may begin with receiving a shift swap request (operation 1502). A shift swap requested identifier may be displayed in a day box for the day of the requested shift swap in a calendar image (operation 1504). Information regarding the shift swap request and an accept shift swap request control element are displayed in a detail view box overlaid on the calendar image (operation 1506). It then may be determined whether the accept shift swap request control element is selected by an operator (operation 1508). The process terminates if the accept shift swap request control element is not selected. Otherwise, the electronic calendar is updated to reflect the accepted shift swap (operation 1510), with the process terminating thereafter.”; col. 5: 59 – col. 6: 3 – “Electronic calendar 200 may be implemented as part of employee self-service functions 204 of human resources management system 202. Employee self-service functions 204 may include various functions provided for persons 206. Employee self-service functions 204 for person 208 in persons 206 may be accessed by operator 210 via employee dashboard 212. For example, without limitation, electronic calendar 200 for person 208 may be accessed by operator 210 via employee dashboard 212 for person 208. Operator 210 may be person 208 or someone authorized to use employee self-service functions 204, including electronic calendar 200, for person 208.”).
Lu’s request to swap a shift includes a specific shift to be traded by each person (Lu: figs. 10-12) and updates the schedule when requests are accepted (Lu: col. 9: 48-51; col. 5: 59 – col. 6: 3). In general, a counter shift trade request may include a proposed shift for the targeted agent to give up to the source/requesting agent (which is taught by Lu, as discussed above). Lu does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the graphical user interface provides selectable action options comprising an option to counter (i.e., further negotiate) the shift trade request;
receiving a counter (i.e., a further negotiated) shift trade request from a target agent from the set of target agents in response to the target agent selecting the option to counter (i.e., further negotiate) the shift trade request, wherein the counter (i.e., further negotiated) shift trade request comprises a tradeable shift within the set of tradeable shifts selected by the target agent;
sending the counter (i.e., further negotiated) shift trade request directly to the source agent,
wherein the counter (i.e., further negotiated) shift trade request is displayed through the graphical user interface;
wherein when the source agent accepts the counter (i.e., further negotiated) shift trade request, the shift schedule is updated based on the counter (i.e., further negotiated) shift trade request; and
sending a schedule notification to the source agent and to the target agent regarding the updated shift schedule.
Narasimhan explicitly allows for a series of negotiations, including multiple offers and counter-offers, to be conducted between workers (Narasimhan: ¶ 58 – “Responses need not exactly match the trade request. For example, a response to a trade request for a Friday shift off can include an offer to work four hours of the eight hour shift. When a response that does not exactly match the trade request is received by the worker posting the trade request, the worker can negotiate 668 with the responder. The negotiations can take the form of a series of responses, e.g., offers and counter-offers, between the two workers. Prior to displaying the updated listings, the illustrated method 600 can determine 670 if a predetermined deadline for trading is exceeded. For those shifts wherein the deadline is exceeded, trading will be closed, and the closed status will be reflected in the listing. Trading for other shifts can continue.“) and approved by both workers before finalizing an agreement that is sent to a manager (Narasimhan: ¶ 57). In Narasimhan, workers receive task notifications and accept the task notifications via communications services and an interface (Narashimhan: figs. 1, 8, ¶¶ 62-63) and the listing of shifts is displayed (Narasimhan: ¶¶ 54, 58).
The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Lu to incorporate the following:
wherein the graphical user interface provides selectable action options comprising an option to counter (i.e., further negotiate) the shift trade request;
receiving a counter (i.e., a further negotiated) shift trade request from a target agent from the set of target agents in response to the target agent selecting the option to counter (i.e., further negotiate) the shift trade request, wherein the counter (i.e., further negotiated) shift trade request comprises a tradeable shift within the set of tradeable shifts selected by the target agent;
sending the counter (i.e., further negotiated) shift trade request directly to the source agent,
wherein the counter (i.e., further negotiated) shift trade request is displayed through the graphical user interface;
wherein when the source agent accepts the counter (i.e., further negotiated) shift trade request, the shift schedule is updated based on the counter (i.e., further negotiated) shift trade request; and
sending a schedule notification to the source agent and to the target agent regarding the updated shift schedule
in order to facilitate more efficient, timely, and convenient interactions related to shift swaps (as suggested in col. 4: 4-10 of Lu and in ¶ 37 of Narashimhan) while improving worker satisfaction by giving workers more control and the ability for finer precision in allowing for greater flexibility in the ability to perform multiple rounds of negotiation until more preferred terms of shift swaps are reached (as suggested in ¶¶ 57-58 of Narasimhan).
Additionally, specifically regarding a selectable option to counter (i.e., further negotiate) the shift trade request, in the analogous art of bidding and negotiating, Nathanson specifically presents a graphical user interface with an “accept bid” button, a “decline bid” button, and a “submit counteroffer” button (Nathanson: col. 9: 20-38). The Examiner submits that it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the Lu-Narashimhan combination to incorporate a selectable option to counter (i.e., further negotiate) the shift trade request in order to more conveniently provide and facilitate such operations for a user via a GUI.
[Claim 2] Lu discloses wherein the parameters comprise one or more of unplanned absenteeism, contact volume inflow, shift characteristics, skills needed, understaffing, overstaffing, or any combination thereof (col. 9: 10-26 – “Shift search interface 1100 is configured to allow an operator to specify parameters for identifying available work shifts of other persons that would be acceptable for swapping. For example, without limitation, shift search interface may 1100 prompt an operator to enter one or more of dates for acceptable shifts, locations of acceptable shifts, job type of acceptable shifts, name of other person with acceptable shifts, or any other appropriate parameters. After entering appropriate parameters in shift search interface 1100, a search for available shifts that satisfy the parameters may be initiated by selecting search button 1102. For example, without limitation, available shifts that satisfy the identified parameters may be identified by the search and listed in an appropriate manner. An operator may then identify a shift for swapping from the listed shifts. A shift swap request then may be sent to the person that is currently assigned to perform the identified shift.“).
[Claim 4] Lu discloses wherein the shift trade request from the source agent may be a request to exchange a full shift assigned to the source agent, or a portion of a full shift assigned to the source agent (fig. 12 --
PNG
media_image3.png
406
260
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; A shift will either be a full or partial shift. The fact that someone is sick and wants to switch one day for another, as seen in fig. 12, implies a full shift swap request.).
[Claim 6] Lu discloses wherein, when a shift trade request from a target agent is not received or when the source agent does not accept a shift trade request from a target agent, the operations further comprise closing the shift trade request (col. 11: 31-37 – “It then may be determined whether the accept shift swap request control element is selected by an operator (operation 1508). The process terminates if the accept shift swap request control element is not selected. Otherwise, the electronic calendar is updated to reflect the accepted shift swap (operation 1510), with the process terminating thereafter.”).
In general, a counter shift trade request may include a proposed shift for the targeted agent to give up to the source/requesting agent (which is taught by Lu, as discussed above in the rejection of the independent claim). Lu does not explicitly disclose that the shift trade request is a counter (i.e., further negotiated) shift trade request; however, the Lu-Narashimhan-Nathanson combination addressed the request specifically being a counter (i.e., further negotiated) shift trade request in the rejection of the independent claim above. The same analysis applies to the dependent claims as well.
[Claims 8-9, 11, 13] Claims 8-9, 11, and 13 recite limitations already addressed by the rejections of claims 1-2, 4, and 6 above; therefore, the same rejections apply.
[Claims 15-16, 18-19] Claims 15-16 and 18-19 recite limitations already addressed by the rejections of claims 1-2, 4, and 6 above; therefore, the same rejections apply.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 11,010,699) in view of Narasimhan et al. (US 2005/0096962) in view of Nathanson et al. (US 8,266,032), as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above (respectively), in view of Jeong et al. (US 2021/0150451).
[Claims 3, 10, 17] Lu does not explicitly disclose wherein the parameters are determined by a contact center supervisor or administrator. Jeong explains how supervisors or other authorized personnel access the labor management system to impose restrictions related to work shift trade requests:
[0090] In step 414, labor management system (LMS) 125 determines whether the proposed trade request is allowed. In one embodiment, the set of rules determined in step 308 may be used in step 414 to determine if the proposed trade is allowed. For example, the set of rules specify that a minimum number of delivery workers (224A and 224B) must be available on a specific day based on a predicted workload and a predetermined productivity capability. Thus, labor management system (LMS) 125 will not allow the proposed trade request if the proposed trade request would result in less than the minimum number of delivery workers available for shift for one of the dates involved in the proposed trade request. In some embodiments, additional or alternative rules may govern whether the proposed trade request will be allowed. For example, a supervisor or an authorized personnel may access labor management system (LMS) 125 to impose additional restrictions on the proposed trade requests when needed.
[0091] If labor management system (LMS) 125 determines that the proposed trade request is not allowed, then “Allow Trade” is set to “No,” and process 400 repeats at step 404. In addition, labor management system (LMS) 125 may generate an interactive user interface containing an error message if the proposed trade request is not allowed, informing the first user that the proposed trade request cannot be completed. FIG. 5G illustrates a non-limiting example of an interactive user interface 500 containing an error message 511.
The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Lu wherein the parameters are determined by a contact center supervisor or administrator in order to help ensure that labor requirements that are often enforced by a supervisor or administrator are properly reflected in the automated shift swap system so that the most appropriate rules are enforced with less need for constant human supervision.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 11,010,699) in view of Narasimhan et al. (US 2005/0096962) in view of Nathanson et al. (US 8,266,032), as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above (respectively), in view of Tewari et al. (US 2008/0091501).
[Claims 7, 14, 20] Lu does not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise sending the schedule notification to a supervisor of the source agent or of the target agent. Tewari discloses wherein the operations further comprise sending the schedule notification to a supervisor of the source agent or of the target agent (Tewari: ¶ 39 – “If the result of applying soft validation rules at block 450 is "Approve", then processing continues at block 490, where the schedule (230 or 330) is updated to reflect the partial shift swap. The process of updating the schedule will be discussed in more detail in connection with FIG. 5. Next, at block 495, the offeror and acceptor agents are notified that the partial shift swap request (240 or 340) is approved. In some embodiments, the manager is also notified. Processing of the request is then complete.”). The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Lu wherein the operations further comprise sending the schedule notification to a supervisor of the source agent or of the target agent in order to allow for a supervisor to be properly informed of all work operations so that the supervisor may intervene, as needed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rovnan et al. (US 12,170,132) – Provides interfaces for requesting and accepting/declining shift trades (figs. 9, 10).
Padalalu et al. (US 2023/0004921) – Uses a ranking system for shift trading.
Isom et al. (US 2024/0202622) – Provides an interface for shift management.
Hunter et al. (US 2022/0092521) – Parses a skill set for a minimum number of requirements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSANNA M DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4:30 pm.
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.
/SUSANNA M. DIAZ/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625A
Prosecution Insights