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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to communication filed on 10/2/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
The Examiner has noted the Applicants claiming Priority from Provisional or Applications:
provisional 63/214,409 filed 06/24/2021; provisional 63/236,788 filed 08/25/2021; provisional 63/246,241 filed 09/20/2021; CIP of 17/506,673 filed 10/21/2021; CIP of 17/745,041 filed 05/16/2022; provisional 63/460,126 filed 04/18/2023; provisional 63/539,977 filed 09/22/2023.
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/214,409; 63/236,788; 63/246,241; 17/506,673; 17/745,041 fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-2, 4, 18 are currently amended.
Claims 3, 5-6 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-20 are currently under examination and have been rejected as follows.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in view of the amendments.
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 102 are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The previous rejections under 35 USC 103 are maintained and applied to the other pending claims as necessitated by the amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 101:
Step 2A Prong 1:
Applicant argues on page 6 of remarks 10/2/2025:
“With respect to claim 1, Applicant has incorporated computer-based steps including at least ‘retrieving from a hospital system a current work schedule for a set of staff members ...’ and ‘retrieving from the hospital system a current break schedule for the set of staff members ...’ and ‘retrieving from the hospital system one or more capability dynamic attributes and one or more workload status dynamic attributes of a portion of the set of staff members.’ As these items of information are stored in a hospital computer system, as described in Fig. 9 and discussed in paragraphs [0117]-[0125], these steps necessarily involve the use of a computer to retrieve these items of information.”
Examiner maintains the recitation of an abstract idea. Despite incorporating the hospital computer system into the claims as amended, managing employee shifts, breaks, substitutions, and schedules falls within agreements in the form of contracts and legal obligations pertaining to commercial or legal interactions and also within following rules or instructions pertaining to managing personal behavior or interactions between people, each under the larger abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II). The practical application of computer-based additional elements is evaluated at Step 2A Prong Two, but the abstract idea is maintained at Step 2A Prong One.
Further, Managing employee shifts, breaks, substitutions, and schedules falls within concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, or judgement) under the larger abstract grouping of Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III)1. Examiner also points to MPEP2106.04(a)(2) III C finding that computer aided processes such as: 1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer, 2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment, 3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process can still be considered to recite a mental process.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Applicant argues on page 7 of remarks 10/2/2025:
“Applicant submits that, with these added limitations, amended claim 1 ‘as a whole’ recited elements that integrate the rejected steps into a practical computer-based application and therefore meets the requirements of Step 2A Prong Two… and therefore is eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 per MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as amended introduce the new additional computer-based element “hospital system”. The functions of these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of evaluating, identifying, communicating and presenting data, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, these functions can be viewed as not meaningfully different than a business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i).
The dependent claims 2, 4, 7-18 merely incorporate the additional elements recited in claim 1 along with further narrowing of the abstract idea of claim 1 its their execution of the abstract idea. Specifically, the dependent claims narrow the “hospital system”, “non-volatile machine-readable memory”, and “processor” to capabilities such as adjusting, notifying, accepting, identifying, comparing, determining, changing and receiving various forms of data such as start times, breaks, staff members, tasks, time differences, task durations, requests, attributes, etc. which, when evaluated per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) represent mere invocation of computers to perform existing processes. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually and in combination fail to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) and for the same reasons they also fail to provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4, 7-20 are reasoned to be patent ineligible. The rejection is updated to reflect the amended claims in the 101 section below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 102/103:
Applicant argues on page 7 of remarks 10/2/2025:
“Applicant respectfully disagrees with the assertion that having time to give another employee a break is a ‘dynamic attribute,’ as defined within the instant application, of Employee A.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant specification states at ¶ [0024]: “As used within this disclosure, the phrase “dynamic attribute” refers to all changeable factors associated with a patient, a staff member, a task, a shift or a break”; and ¶ [0026]: “Shift dynamic attributes are defined as attributes that can change on a shift or between one shift and another. Shift dynamic attributes may influence how breaks are scheduled and/or executed on a shift or how tasks are reassigned on shift. Shift dynamic attributes include, but are not limited to, staffing, shift hours…”. Examiner interprets an employee’s shift schedule yielding time to give another employee a break to be a dynamic attribute consistent with the specification.
Applicant argues on page 8 of remarks 10/2/2025:
“Charles does not, therefore, teach or make obvious that it is necessary to check whether Employee A has the skills and training to take over a task from Employee F, e.g., give Employee F a break. Furthermore, Charles teaches a system starts when Employee A has free time, i.e., no current assigned tasks, and initiates a search for another anesthesiologist that needs a break, which is the opposite of the claimed method wherein the staff member that needs a break is identified first and the system then searches for another staff member with both the skills and the bandwidth in their concurrent workload to take over from the staff member needing the break.
“…Applicant has further amended claim 1 to recite the retrieval of capability dynamic attributes and use these capability attributes as part of the basis for the identification of the second staff member, thereby explicitly ensuring that the second staff member has the skills and to take over the tasks of the first staff member.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Charles addresses narrowing the field by availability at ¶ [0031]: “The system allows an employee to also request a break from another employee, which is shown in FIG. 2. When a break is requested by an employee, the system notifies other employees. The system can filter between employees to only notify those that are not in the middle of an operation.” Lesaint addresses narrowing the field by skill at col. 5 lines 20-27: “another technician who is suitably positioned and skilled to perform the task may be allocated that task if he calls in first, if to do so produces a net benefit to the schedules. The original schedule for the second technician is then suspended, and each task in that schedule will become unscheduled until a technician suited to the task calls in. This may be the first technician, if his technical skills and geographical location are suitable….”
Accordingly, the previous rejection under 35 USC 102 is withdrawn. The rejection under 35 USC 103 will be maintained and applied to all pending claims. Detailed citations and rationale are included in the 103 section below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1-2, 4, 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-20 are directed to a method or process which is a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One: The claims recite, describe, or set forth a judicial exception of an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Specifically, the claims recite, describe or set forth agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, following rules or instructions, and concepts performed in the human mind including (including observation, evaluation, or judgement): “retrieving… a current work schedule for a set of staff members”, “retrieving… a current break schedule for the set of staff members”, “determining that a first staff member needs a break, the break having attributes of a start time and a duration”, “determining, if a conflicting task is identified, whether a break can be delayed”, “identifying a task that is assigned to the first staff member and conflicts with the break”, “retrieving … capability dynamic attributes and… workload status dynamic attributes of …staff members”, “notifying the first staff member, if no conflicting task is identified, to take the break at the start time”. Managing employee shifts, breaks, substitutions, and schedules falls within agreements in the form of contracts and legal obligations pertaining to commercial or legal interactions and also within following rules or instructions pertaining to managing personal behavior or interactions between people, each under the larger abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II). Further, Managing employee shifts, breaks, substitutions, and schedules falls within concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, or judgement) under the larger abstract grouping of Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III)2. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Claim 1 recites the additional element “hospital system”. Dependent claims 19, 20 recite the additional elements “non-volatile machine-readable memory” and “processor”. The functions of these additional elements include examples such as “retrieving… schedule[s]”, “determining that a first staff member needs a break”, “automatically identifying a task that is assigned to the first staff member”, “retrieving… capability dynamic attributes”, and “notifying the first staff member, if no conflicting task is identified, to take the break at the start time”. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of evaluating, identifying, communicating and presenting data, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, these functions can be viewed as not meaningfully different than a business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i). The claims are directed to an abstract idea and the judicial exception does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Step 2B: According to MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), considering whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite the technological details of how the actual technological solution to the actual technological problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover an entrepreneurial and thus abstract solution to an entrepreneurial problem with no technological details on how the technological result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 7-18 do not appear to provide any additional computer-based elements, let alone for such additional computer-based elements to integrate the abstract idea into practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
Further, dependent claims 2, 4, 7-18 merely incorporate the additional elements recited in claim 1 along with further narrowing of the abstract idea of claim 1 its their execution of the abstract idea. Specifically, the dependent claims narrow the “hospital system”, “non-volatile machine-readable memory”, and “processor” to capabilities such as adjusting, notifying, accepting, identifying, comparing, determining, changing and receiving various forms of data such as start times, breaks, staff members, tasks, time differences, task durations, requests, attributes, etc. which, when evaluated per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) represent mere invocation of computers to perform existing processes. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually and in combination fail to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) and for the same reasons they also fail to provide significantly more (Step 2B). Thus, claims 1-2, 4, 7-20 are reasoned to be patent ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will contain bracketed comments preceded by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be placed to further explain a rejection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Lesaint et al. US 6578005 B1, hereinafter Lesaint in view of
Charles US 20200019917 A1, hereinafter Charles. As per,
Regarding Claim 1: Lesaint teaches:
A method, comprising steps:
retrieving from the [..] system a current break schedule for the set of staff members, the break schedule comprising one or more breaks each having a respective start time and a respective duration; determining from the retrieved break schedule that a first staff member of the set of staff members is scheduled to take a break (Lesaint col. 11 line 57: The resource data includes details necessary to schedule breaks, for example for meals. These breaks are normally of specified duration, but their start (and therefore finish) times are flexible within a specified window to suit the requirements of the work, and their locations are not pre-arranged. Details are stored, for each technician, of the earliest that a break may begin, the latest time it may begin, and its duration. The pre-scheduler 30 will, initially, position each break at its earliest possible start time. Col. 29 line 39: The first test carried out in this process (1401) determines if a break needs to be considered…. Line 57: If the technician has not yet taken a break, then the test in step 1401 returns a positive result. [Also see Fig. 14 and related text]);
automatically identifying a task that is assigned to the first staff member in the retrieved work schedule and conflicts with the break (Lesaint col. 29 line 51: If the technician has a break yet to be taken, there are four possible outcomes of the test (shown as 1410 to 1413 in FIG. 14). Either the task is infeasible, (1413) or it is feasible; in the latter case it may be necessary to schedule a break before (1412) or during (1411) the task, or not at all (1410) if the task can be completed before a break has to be taken);
determining, if a conflicting task is identified, whether the break can be delayed long enough to complete the identified task (Lesaint col. 30 line 4: If the technician will neither be too early nor too late (outcomes of tests 1403a and 1404a both negative) then a test (step 1405) is made to check whether the task can be completed before the latest time at which the break may be started. If the outcome of this test is positive then the task is feasible…. [EN: adjustment of the start time of the break is implied to be adjusted/delayed until task is finished]);
retrieving from the [..] system one or more capability dynamic attributes [..] of a second portion of the set of staff members (Lesaint col. 5 line 20: … another technician who is suitably positioned and skilled to perform the task may be allocated that task if he calls in first, if to do so produces a net benefit to the schedules. The original schedule for the second technician is then suspended, and each task in that schedule will become unscheduled until a technician suited to the task calls in. This may be the first technician, if his technical skills and geographical location are suitable….);
automatically selecting, if it is determined that the break cannot be delayed, a second staff member from the second portion of the set of staff members that has the capability attributes to perform the identified task [..] and re-assigning the identified task to the second staff member (Lesaint col. 5 line 20: … another [EN: second] technician who is suitably positioned and skilled to perform the task may be allocated [EN: re-assigned] that task if he calls in first, if to do so produces a net benefit to the schedules. The original schedule for the second technician is then suspended, and each task in that schedule will become unscheduled until a technician suited to the task calls in. This may be the first technician, if his technical skills and geographical location are suitable….); and
notifying the first staff member, if no conflicting task is identified or if the identified task is re-assigned, to take the break at the start time (Lesaint col. 30 line 29: if the time slot within which the break may be taken has already opened (test 1406 negative), a further test (step 1408) is made to determine whether, if the technician were to take his break immediately, he would still be able to start the task before the end of the appointment timeslot. If the outcome is positive (i.e. the task is feasible if the break is taken before it) the technician is instructed to take the break and then carry out the task. [Also see Fig. 14 and related text]).
Although Lesaint teaches determining a staff member needs a break, evaluating conflicts with tasks, and finding a second staff member with appropriate capability dynamic attributes, Lesaint does not specifically narrow the system to a hospital, or specifically narrow the workload dynamic attribute of the second staff member to be factored into selection.
However, Charles in analogous art of employee task and break management teaches or suggests:
retrieving from a hospital system a current work schedule for a set of staff members, the work schedule comprising one or more tasks assigned to a first portion of the set of staff members (Charles ¶ [0027]: The system provides a user interface that allows anesthesiologists to view where other anesthesiologists in a hospital or other medical facility are stationed [EN: assigned tasks] during a particular time, request an unscheduled break, accept another's request for an unscheduled break, or reject another's request for an unscheduled break. [Also see Figs. 1, 3, 5 showing break schedule at a hospital location and related text]);
[..]
retrieving from the hospital system [..] one or more workload status dynamic attributes of a second portion of the set of staff members (Charles Charles ¶ [0027]: The system provides a user interface that allows anesthesiologists to view where other anesthesiologists in a hospital or other medical facility are stationed [EN: assigned tasks] during a particular time, request an unscheduled break, accept another's request for an unscheduled break, or reject another's request for an unscheduled break. ¶ [0031]: The system allows an employee to also request a break from another employee, which is shown in FIG. 2. When a break is requested by an employee, the system notifies other employees. The system can filter between employees to only notify those that are not in the middle of an operation);
automatically selecting, if it is determined that the break cannot be delayed, a second staff member from the second portion of the set of staff members [..] the workload status attributes to perform the conflicting task during the break concurrent with their own assigned tasks [..] (See Charles Fig. 5: Employee F needs a break [EN: break cannot be delayed]. Employee A [EN: second staff member] has time to give breaks to employees in ORs. See Charles Fig. 5: System [EN: automatically] directs Employee A to go to OR5. See Charles Fig. 5: Employee A gives Employee F [EN: first staff member] a 30 min break, with the obvious implication that Employee F is notified to take the break when Employee A arrives)
Charles and Lesaint are found as analogous art of employee task and break management. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Lesaint’s real time schedule change resource allocation apparatus and method to have included Charles’ teachings around narrowing the system environment to a hospital and narrowing the field of potential substitute employees based on workload dynamic attributes. The benefit of these additional features would have improved efficiency in coordinating breaks (Charles ¶ [0003]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Lesaint in view of Charles (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of employee task and break management. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Lesaint in view of Charles above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 2: Lesaint / Charles teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Lesaint further teaches:
adjusting, if it is determined that the break can be delayed, the start time to allow completion of the identified task (Lesaint col. 30 line 4: If the technician will neither be too early nor too late (outcomes of tests 1403a and 1404a both negative) then a test (step 1405) is made to check whether the task can be completed before the latest time at which the break may be started. If the outcome of this test is positive then the task is feasible…. [EN: adjustment of the start time of the break is implied to be adjusted/delayed until task is finished]); and
notifying the first staff member, if the start time is adjusted, to complete the identified task then take the break (continued at Lesaint col. 30 line 8: …and no instructions for break are required (outcome 1410). [EN: no instructions for break are “required”, but this does not preclude the system’s capability as there are many other examples of sending the technician instructions during the logical evaluation, and the implication that instructions for completing the task prior to the break are still implied]).
Regarding Claim 4: Lesaint / Charles teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above.
Although Lesaint teaches determining a staff member needs a break, evaluating conflicts with tasks, and notifying the staff member any adjustments made, Lesaint does not specifically teach the supervisor instructing the employee to take a break at the start time.
However, Charles in analogous art of employee task and break management teaches or suggests:
wherein the break cannot be delayed if any of the following occur:
an input is received from a supervisor that the first staff member must take the break at the start time (See Charles Fig. 4: Employee B selects time option that is less that fits within Employee A’s 1 hour opening → Supervisor notifies Employee A to provide a break for Employee B in OR2); [..].
Charles and Lesaint are found as analogous art of employee task and break management. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Lesaint’s real time schedule change resource allocation apparatus and method to have included Charles’ teachings around the supervisor instructing the employee to take a break at the start time. The benefit of these additional features would have improved efficiency in coordinating breaks (Charles ¶ [0003]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Lesaint in view of Charles (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of employee task and break management. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Lesaint in view of Charles above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 7: Lesaint / Charles teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Lesaint further teaches:
wherein the step of identifying a task comprises:
accepting a list of one or more uncompleted tasks assigned to the first staff member (Lesaint col. 12 line 30: The task pre-processor 34 selects the subset of tasks that are to be scheduled by the pre-scheduler 30 (i.e. the list of tasks considered difficult to schedule), and passes these tasks to the pre-scheduler 30. These include: …e. Tasks that the user has requested to be allocated to a specific technician. Lesaint col. 28 line 66: The first task in the resulting list which meets the criteria above and the break management criteria is selected for allocation to the on-line technician (step 1305));
identifying a task on the list that has a task duration and a time window (Lesaint col. 8 line 34: For each possible allocation of a technician to a task, a 35 "technician/task cost", the cost of allocating a given task to a given technician is then estimated…. This probability depends on the projected finishing time of the technician's current task, the amount of travelling time needed to get to the new task, the estimated duration of the new task, and the target time by which the new task must be done);
automatically comparing the task duration and the time window of the identified task to the start time and the duration of the break (Lesaint col. 30 line 6: …a test (step 1405) is made to check whether the task can be completed before the latest time at which the break may be started. Line 10: if the task cannot be completed before the latest time at which a break must be taken (outcome of test 1405 negative) then the next test (step 1406) is made, to determine whether it is still too early for the technician to take his break immediately); and
determining that the identified task conflicts with the break if the identified task cannot be completed before the start time and the identified task cannot be completed within the time window if the identified task is started after the break is completed (Lesaint col. 30 line 6: …a test (step 1405) is made to check whether the task can be completed before the latest time at which the break may be started. Line 20: …a further test (step 1408) is made to determine whether, if the technician were to take his break immediately, he would still be able to start the task before the end of the appointment timeslot. Line 27: if the response to the test 1408 is negative, then the task is infeasible (outcome 1413). This is because neither the break nor the task can be completed before the latest time by which 30 the other one must be started. [Also see Fig. 14 and related text]).
Regarding Claim 8: Lesaint / Charles teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above.
Lesaint further teaches:
wherein the identified task cannot be completed before the start time when the identified task has not been started and the identified task has a total task duration that is greater than a time difference between a current time and the start time (Lesaint col. 30 line 6: …a test (step 1405) is made to check whether the task can be completed before the latest time at which the break may be started. [Also see Fig. 14 and related text]).
Regarding Claim 9: Lesaint / Charles teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above.
Lesaint further teaches:
wherein the identified task cannot be completed before the start time when the identified task has been started and the identified task has a remaining task duration that is greater than a time difference between a current time and the start time (Lesaint col. 30 line 50: Finally, if the outcome of test 1402a is negative (i.e. the task does not have an appointment time) a test 1405a, analogous to test 1405, is carried out to determine whether the task can be completed before the end of the timeslot within which the break must be taken. If the outcome is positive then the task is feasible and no instructions are required for the break (outcome 1410); otherwise a further test (1409) is made to determine whether the technician would arrive at the task before the beginning of the break timeslot. If he does not (1409 negative), then the technician is instructed to take his break before starting the task (outcome 1412). Otherwise, he is instructed to take it during the task (outcome 1411). [Also see Fig. 14 and related text]).
Regarding Claim 10: Lesaint / Charles teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Although Lesaint teaches determining a staff member needs a break, evaluating conflicts with tasks, and notifying the staff member any adjustments made, Lesaint does not specifically teach the staff member personally requesting a break.
However, Charles in analogous art of employee task and break management teaches or suggests:
wherein the step of determining that the first staff member needs the break comprises receiving a request for a break at a proposed start time with a proposed duration (Charles ¶ [0027]: The system provides a user interface that allows anesthesiologists to view where other anesthesiologists in a hospital or other medical facility are stationed during a particular time, request an unscheduled break, accept another's request for an unscheduled break, or reject another's request for an unscheduled break. [EN: see Fig. 2 where Employee B requests a break and selects a starting time and length within Employee A’s time window. Also see Fig. 3 where Employee A gives a 30 minute break to Employee F]).
Charles and Lesaint are found as analogous art of employee task and break management. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Lesaint’s real time schedule change resource allocation apparatus and method to have included Charles’ teachings around the staff member personally requesting a break. The benefit of these additional features would have improved efficiency in coordinating breaks (Charles ¶ [0003]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Lesaint in view of Charles (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of employee task and break management. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Lesaint in view of Charles above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 11: Lesaint / Charles teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Although Lesaint teaches determining a staff member needs a break, evaluating conflicts with tasks, and notifying the staff member any adjustments made, Lesaint does not specifically teach the staff member personally requesting a break.
However, Charles in analogous art of employee task and break management teaches or suggests:
wherein the request comprises changing the start time to the proposed start time (Charles ¶ [0027]: Accordingly, anesthesiologists are forced to adjust their break schedule to their evolving daily work schedule. ¶ [0029]: Employee A can provide an estimated time of arrival to the Employee F. [EN: see Fig. 2 where Employee B requests a break and selects a starting time and length within Employee A’s time window]).
Charles and Lesaint are found as analogous art of employee task and break management. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Lesaint’s real time schedule change resource allocation apparatus and method to have included Charles’ teachings around the staff member personally requesting a break. The benefit of these additional features would have improved efficiency in coordinating breaks (Charles ¶ [0003]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Lesaint in view of Charles (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of employee task and break management. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Lesaint in view of Charles above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 12: Lesaint / Charles teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above.
Although Lesaint teaches determining a staff member needs a break, evaluating conflicts with tasks, and notifying the staff member any adjustments made, Lesaint does not specifically teach the staff member personally requesting a break.
However, Charles in analogous art of employee task and break management teaches or suggests:
wherein the request comprises changing the duration to the proposed duration (See Charles Fig. 2: Software provides Employee B with length of time options; Employee B selects time option that fits within Employee A’s 1 hour opening).
Charles and Lesaint are found as analogous art of employee task and break management. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Lesaint’s real time schedule change resource allocation apparatus and method to have included Charles’ teachings around the staff member personally requesting a break. The benefit of these additional features would have improved efficiency in coordinating breaks (Charles ¶ [0003]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Lesaint in view of Charles (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of employee task and break management. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Lesaint in view of Charles above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 13: Lesaint / Charles teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above.
Lesaint further teaches:
wherein the request to change the duration comprises a request to end a current work shift at the proposed start time (Lesaint col. 31 line 3: If no break is scheduled the technician has no work to do and is instructed to contact supervisor [EN: request] for instructions (step 1214)… to be authorized to finish work for the day).
Regarding Claim 14: Lesaint / Charles teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Although Lesaint teaches determining a staff member needs a break, evaluating conflicts with tasks, and notifying the staff member any adjustments made, Lesaint does not specifically teach the staff member personally requesting a break.
However, Charles in analogous art of employee task and break management teaches or suggests:
wherein the request is received from the first staff member (See Charles Fig. 2: Employee B [first staff member] inputs a “request break” status into the software).
Charles and Lesaint are found as analogous art of employee task and break management. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Lesaint’s real time schedule change resource allocation apparatus and method to have included Charles’ teachings around the staff member personally requesting a break. The benefit of these additional features would have improved efficiency in coordinating breaks (Charles ¶ [0003]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Lesaint in view of Charles (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of employee task and break management. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Lesaint in view of Charles above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 16: Lesaint / Charles teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above.
Lesaint further teaches:
receiving, after the start time, a new task that is assigned to the first staff member; re-assigning the new task to the second staff member (See Lesaint explanation of re-assigning tasks to another technician who can begin the task sooner at col. 29 line 2: a further test (step 1306/1306A) is made in which it is determined whether there is a task of higher priority than the present technician's scheduled task (if any), and not already considered in step 1304/1304A, which is already scheduled to another technician, but to which the on-line technician could attend earlier than the scheduled technician).
Regarding Claim 17: Lesaint / Charles teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above.
Lesaint further teaches:
changing, if it is determined that the break cannot be delayed, an attribute of the break that is one or more of a group of attributes comprising the start time, the duration, and a type of break (Lesaint col. 30 line 19: …if the time slot within which the break may be taken has already opened (test 1406 negative), a further test (step 1408) is made to determine whether, if the technician were to take his break immediately, he would still be able to start the task before the end of the appointment timeslot. If the outcome is positive (i.e. the task is feasible if the break is taken before it) the technician is instructed to take the break [EN: move start time up] and then carry out the task (outcome 1412)).
Regarding Claim 18: Lesaint / Charles teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Lesaint further teaches:
wherein: a task conflicts with the break if the task cannot be delayed until the break is completed (Lesaint col. 30 line 19: …if the time slot within which the break may be taken has already opened (test 1406 negative), a further test (step 1408) is made to determine whether, if the technician were to take his break immediately, he would still be able to start the task before the end of the appointment timeslot. Line 27: …if the response to the test 1408 is negative, then the task is infeasible (outcome 1413). This is because neither the break nor the task can be completed before the latest time by which the other one must be started.).
Regarding Claim 19: Claim 19 is the non-volatile machine-readable memory claim corresponding to the method of claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 by Lesaint / Charles applies accordingly. Lesaint also teaches the additional elements claim 19 not recited in claim 1, the non-volatile machine-readable memory, instructions, and processor, (see Lesaint col. 5 line 57-65: “computer apparatus”, “processing unit”, “memory”, and “program”)
Regarding Claim 20: Claim 20 is the system claim corresponding to the method of claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 by Lesaint / Charles applies accordingly. Lesaint also teaches the additional element claim 20 not recited in claim 1, the system (see Lesaint abstract: “ruled based system”, “stochastic system”, “schedule modification system”, and “schedule generation system”).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Lesaint / Charles as applied above and in further view of
Sarvana US 20180032944 A1, hereinafter Sarvana. As per,
Regarding Claim 15: Lesaint / Charles teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Although Lesaint teaches determining a staff member needs a break, evaluating conflicts with tasks, and notifying the staff member any adjustments made, Lesaint does not specifically teach the staff member needing a break based on a dynamic attribute of the staff member.
However, Sarvana in analogous art of employee task and break management teaches or suggests:
wherein the step of determining that a first staff member needs a break is based in part on a staff dynamic attribute of the first staff member (Sarvana ¶ [0106]: If scheduling system 120 were to determine that at least one of the newly computed stress, fatigue, or mental focus scores [EN: dynamic attributes] exceeds a corresponding one of the threshold stress, fatigue, or mental-focus scores (e.g., step 310; YES), scheduling system 120 may replace the currently allocated task with a mandatory break having a predetermined duration (e.g., in step 312)).
Sarvana, Charles and Lesaint are found as analogous art of employee task and break management. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Lesaint / Charles’ real time schedule change resource allocation apparatus and method to have included Sarvana’s teachings around the staff member needing a break based on a dynamic attribute of the staff member. The benefit of these additional features would have reduced effort and costs scheduling employees (Sarvana ¶ [0002]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordin