DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment filed January 8, 2026. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 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 January 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant argues that a human cannot mentally perform the operations of the invention due to the recitations of a graphical user interface and Applicant submits that “the present claims are directed to use of a graphical user interface to streamline the agent shift trade request process, by reducing the need for a source agent to reinitiate a shift trade request multiple times in order to set up a shift exchange that is suitable for both the source and target agent.” (Page 8 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)). As to Applicant’s argument that “[t]he graphical user interface is specialized and designed specifically to facilitate shift trade requests and counter shift trade requests between a source agent and one or more target agents” (on page 11 of Applicant’s response), this is what any generic GUI does – present information that is useful to a human. The claims do not present any technical improvements in the underlying technical operation of the GUI itself.
On page 9 of Applicant’s response, Applicant states, “These methods and systems manage workload and facilitate workforce management to increase operational efficiency of one or more agents, which helps optimize an agent’s (or pool of agents) working efficiency and quality, and the workflow thereof.” The asserted improvement in working efficiency and quality would be achieved by such a process performed manually and, thus, any asserted improvements are 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 do not incorporate any aspects of organizing human activity (page 9 of Applicant’s response). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims facilitate shift trades among human agents, which is an example of managing personal behavior and interactions between people, which is an example of organizing human activity.
Applicant asserts that various limitations present a combination of features that “is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field of shift trading.” (Page 13 of Applicant’s response) 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 prior art rejection, Applicant argues that “Taheri is directed towards a non-interactive method and does not teach any peer-to-peer type shift negotiation” (page 15 of Applicant’s response) and that “Taheri also fails to teach or suggest ‘receiving a counter shift trade request from a target agent from the set of target agents, wherein the counter shift trade request comprises a tradeable shift within the set of tradeable shifts selected by the target agent.’” (Page 16 of Applicant’s response) The Examiner points out that Taheri, in paragraphs 97-98 (which Applicant cites in the arguments), allows the first user to select a work shift to swap and this work shift swap request is sent directly to a second user who then is able to accept the swap request and the second user is also presented with a menu of options from which to select a work shift of the second user to swap. The second user does indeed receive the work swap request directly and the second user provides selection of a work shift to swap on the second user’s end, which is an example of a negotiation.
Furthermore, Tewari allows for negotiations to be performed until both agents agree on the swap details (Tewari: ¶ 72 – “When feedback is required, the request remains in the "Negotiation" state until both agents agree on the swap details, and one of them submits the request to the manager.”). As to the ability to directly send the counter shift trade request to the source agent, the Narasimhan reference has been incorporated into the rejection in order to help address the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 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 8-14), Apparatus (claims 1-7), 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;
identifying a set of tradeable shifts for the source agent;
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;
receiving a counter shift trade request from a target agent from the set of target agents, 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 directly 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 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 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 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 5, 12] wherein the set of tradeable shifts for the source agent are identified using the parameters affecting staffing needs and shift trade approval criteria.
[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 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 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 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, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tewari et al. (US 2008/0091501) in view of Taheri et al. (US 2021/0407658) in view of Narasimhan et al. (US 2005/0096962).
[Claim 1] Tewari discloses a counter shift trade request management system (¶ 22 – “FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating various objects involved in one embodiment of a system and method for partial shift swapping…Another "two-way swap" embodiment will be described below, in which the agents exchange shifts: the agent offering his shift also accepts the other agent's shift in return.”) 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 (¶ 77 – “The systems and methods disclosed herein can be embodied in any computer-readable medium for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device. Such instruction execution systems include any computer-based system, processor-containing system, or other system that can fetch and execute the instructions from the instruction execution system.”), to perform operations which comprise:
identifying a shift trade request from a source agent (¶¶ 29-33 – A two-way partial shift swap request includes an offering shift and an accepting shift, which correspond to each of a source agent and a target agent, respectively.);
wherein when the source agent accepts the counter shift trade request, the shift schedule is updated based on the counter shift trade request (¶ 33 – “Thus, after partial shift swap request 340 is put into effect, schedule 330 is updated so that Fred has a new work activity from 8 AM to 10 AM on Sep. 20, 2006, and John has a new work activity from 8 AM to 10 AM on Sep. 21, 2006.”; ¶ 68 – “Some embodiments of partial shift swapping include a feature which allows agents to submit partial shift swap requests (240 or 340), which are then validated by the hard and soft validation rules. Two types of submission are described. In the first type of swap request submission, the request specifies both the offering shift (240O) and the accepting shift (240A). This type is appropriate when the offering agent has coordinated in advance with the accepting agent. That is, John and Fred have already worked out the swap details by which Fred will accept John's shift (one-way), or John will accept Fred's shift while Fred accepts John's shift (two-way).”; ¶ 72 – “When feedback is required, the request remains in the "Negotiation" state until both agents agree on the swap details, and one of them submits the request to the manager.”); and
sending a schedule notification to the source agent and to the target agent regarding the updated shift schedule (¶ 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.”).
Tewari discloses monitoring a shift schedule for a set of agents using parameters affecting staffing needs and shift trade approval criteria (Tewari: ¶ 54 – “Yet another agent-related soft validation rule is violated when the two agents do not have the same skills for the active campaign queue during the time period of the shift involved. Yet another agent-related soft validation rule is violated when the two agents do not have the same skill proficiency level for the active campaign queue during the time period of the shift involved.” This implies that the requisite skills needed for a shift are applied to any agent being considered for a shift.) and Tewari alludes to the existence of interface components to be used by a manager (Tewari: ¶¶ 26, 36); however, Tewari does not explicitly disclose wherein shift trade requests and counter shift trade requests are submitted by an agent through a graphical user interface. Taheri makes up for this deficiency in its disclosure of a shift swap system and method that allow criteria to be identified for prospective shift candidates (Taheri: ¶ 111) and that present graphical user interfaces to first and second users with selectable work shifts to swap (including a shift trade request and a counter shift trade request) (Taheri: figs. 7A-7J, ¶¶ 97-98). In other words, Taheri, in paragraphs 97-98, allows the first user to select a work shift to swap and this work shift swap request is sent directly to a second user who then is able to accept the swap request and the second user is also presented with a menu of options from which to select a work shift of the second user to swap. The second user receives the work swap request directly and the second user provides selection of a work shift to swap on the second user’s end, which is an example of a negotiation. Furthermore, Tewari allows for negotiations to be performed until both agents agree on the swap details (Tewari: ¶ 72 – “When feedback is required, the request remains in the "Negotiation" state until both agents agree on the swap details, and one of them submits the request to the manager.”). 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 Tewari wherein shift trade requests and counter shift trade requests are submitted by an agent through a graphical user interface to facilitate more efficient, timely, and convenient interactions related to shift swaps (as suggested in ¶ 99 of Taheri).
Tewari discloses sending the shift trade request and the set of tradeable shifts to a set of target agents (Tewari: ¶ 13 – “Customer center 100 is staffed by agents who handle incoming and/or outgoing contacts.”; ¶ 18 – “One such function is providing a customer center supervisor or manager with information about agents and contacts, both historical and real-time. Another function is supplying the supervisor with information on how well each agent complies with customer center policies.“ In one example, agents are understood to be agents in a call center and known to a supervisor, thereby implying the existence of a set of target agents.; ¶ 69 – “In the second type of swap request submission, the offering agent "posts" his offered shift. The posted offerings can be viewed by other agents.”) and Tewari alludes to the existence of interface components to be used by a manager (Tewari: ¶¶ 26, 36); however, Tewari does not explicitly disclose wherein the shift trade request and the set of tradeable shifts are displayed through the graphical user interface. Taheri makes up for this deficiency in its disclosure of a shift swap system and method that allow criteria to be identified for prospective shift candidates (Taheri: ¶ 111) and that present graphical user interfaces to first and second users with selectable work shifts to swap (including a shift trade request and a counter shift trade request) (Taheri: figs. 7A-7J, ¶¶ 97-98). 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 Tewari wherein the shift trade request and the set of tradeable shifts are displayed through the graphical user interface to facilitate more efficient, timely, and convenient interactions related to shift swaps (as suggested in ¶ 99 of Taheri).
As discussed above, Tewari facilitates two-way shift swap requests. Tewari does not explicitly disclose details regarding the interfaces utilized by the agents to carry out swap requests, negotiations, and agreements. More specifically, Tewari does not explicitly disclose:
identifying a set of tradeable shifts for the source agent;
receiving a counter shift trade request from a target agent from the set of target agents, 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 directly to the source agent,
wherein the counter shift trade request is displayed through the graphical user interface.
Taheri makes up for this deficiency in its disclosure of a shift swap system and method that allow criteria to be identified for prospective shift candidates (Taheri: ¶ 111) and that present graphical user interfaces to first and second users with selectable work shifts to swap (including a shift trade request and a counter shift trade request) (Taheri: figs. 7A-7J, ¶¶ 97-98). A user requesting a work shift swap may view his/her available work shifts (Taheri: fig. 7A-7D, ¶ 97), which means that a set of tradeable shifts for a source agent is identified. Users may also filter their respective work schedules to identify open shifts (Taheri: ¶ 104). Taheri also discusses the general fulfillment of open work shifts (which include swaps) by identifying specific target agents to whom to offer a work shift swap based on necessary qualifications, likelihood to accept a shift, etc. (Taheri: ¶¶ 108-113). Via a graphical user interface, the second user can agree to swap a shift and select a day from the second user’s calendar to offer to swap with the first user’s offered shift (Taheri: ¶ 98). Furthermore, Tewari allows for negotiations to be performed until both agents agree on the swap details (Tewari: ¶ 72 – “When feedback is required, the request remains in the "Negotiation" state until both agents agree on the swap details, and one of them submits the request to the manager.”).
Even if the fact that both agents negotiate swap details (as described in Tewari, including in ¶¶ 72, 97-98) is not seen as necessarily requiring that the counter shift trade request be presented directly to the source agent involved in a particular counter shift trade request, Narasimhan more 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 Tewari to perform the steps of:
identifying a set of tradeable shifts for the source agent;
receiving a counter shift trade request from a target agent from the set of target agents, 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 directly to the source agent,
wherein the counter shift trade request is displayed through the graphical user interface
in order to facilitate more efficient, timely, and convenient interactions related to shift swaps (as suggested in ¶ 99 of Taheri). Such modifications to Tewari would have further reaped the various benefits disclosed in ¶ 108 of Taheri (“By using the disclosed systems and methods, the system may, in various embodiments, determine one or more suitable candidates that are most likely to accept an offer to fill an unfilled shift. By offering shifts to candidates that are most likely to accept them, the system may, for example, increase the efficiency of resource utilization and reduce wasted candidate time (e.g., by not offering shifts to candidates who are unlikely to be interested in such shifts). If a particular shift remains unfilled despite being offered to candidates more likely to accept such a shift, the system may then offer the particular shift to one or more candidates that are less likely to accept the shift until the shift is filled or until all suitable candidates have been offered the particular shift.”) as well as the benefits disclosed in Narashimhan (including “improved operational efficiencies,” citing ¶ 37 of Narashimhan).
[Claim 2] Tewari discloses wherein the parameters comprise one or more of unplanned absenteeism, contact volume inflow, shift characteristics, skills needed, understaffing, overstaffing, or any combination thereof (¶ 54 – “Yet another agent-related soft validation rule is violated when the two agents do not have the same skills for the active campaign queue during the time period of the shift involved. Yet another agent-related soft validation rule is violated when the two agents do not have the same skill proficiency level for the active campaign queue during the time period of the shift involved.” This implies that the requisite skills needed for a shift are applied to any agent being considered for a shift.).
[Claim 4] Tewari 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 (¶ 24 – “A partial shift swap request 240 includes an offering shift (240O), an accepting shift (240A), and a swap time range (240R) which represents a sub range within the time range 210R of the offering shift 240O. The agent to which an offering shift (240O) is assigned to is referred to as an "offeror agent", and the agent to whom an accepting shift (240A) is assigned to is referred to as an "acceptor agent".”).
[Claim 5] Tewari discloses wherein the set of tradeable shifts for the source agent are identified using the parameters affecting staffing needs and shift trade approval criteria (¶ 54 – “Yet another agent-related soft validation rule is violated when the two agents do not have the same skills for the active campaign queue during the time period of the shift involved. Yet another agent-related soft validation rule is violated when the two agents do not have the same skill proficiency level for the active campaign queue during the time period of the shift involved.”).
[Claim 6] Tewari does not explicitly disclose 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. Taheri discloses that, if a target agent does not respond to a swap request in a timely manner (i.e., a counter shift trade request from a target agent is not received), the first user can send a new swap request to a different user (Taheri: ¶ 99 – “In various embodiments, the system 100 may be configured to allow the first user to put a time limit on the swap request that allows the request to be active for a certain period of time. In this way, if the second user does not respond to the swap request in a timely manner, the first user can send a new swap request to a different provider (e.g., a third user) all without having to manually track down the second user.”). The fact that the first user may move on to a third user to whom to submit a new swap request suggests that the swap request to the second user is considered to be closed if the second user does not respond in a timely manner. 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 Tewari 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 in order to more conveniently and efficiently allow a first user to find a user willing to trade a shift with the first user in a more timely manner (as suggested in ¶¶ 99 and 108 of Taheri).
[Claim 7] Tewari discloses wherein the operations further comprise sending the schedule notification to a supervisor of the source agent or of the target agent (¶ 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.”).
[Claims 8-9, 11-14] Claims 8-9 and 11-14 recite limitations already addressed by the rejections of claims 1-2 and 4-7 above; therefore, the same rejections apply.
[Claims 15-16, 18-20] Claims 15-16 and 18-20 recite limitations already addressed by the rejections of claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7 above; therefore, the same rejections apply.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tewari et al. (US 2008/0091501) in view of Taheri et al. (US 2021/0407658) in view of Narasimhan et al. (US 2005/0096962), as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above (respectively), in view of Jeong et al. (US 2021/0150451).
[Claims 3, 10, 17] Tewari alludes to the influence of managers in making decisions related to rule violations (Tewari: ¶ 36 – “At block 460, the result of applying soft validation rules is examined. If the result is "Suspend", then processing continues at block 470, where the request is submitted to a manager or supervisor for approval or denial. A person of ordinary skill in the art should understand how a user interface component of WFMS 180 can be used by a manager, or other customer center personnel, to process a submitted request. Therefore, this process will not be described in further detail. In some embodiments, information about rule violations and/or rule compliance, as determined during the hard and/or soft rule validation process, is made available to manager during the swap request review process.”); however, Tewari 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 Tewari 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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