DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 21 January 2026.
Claims 1, 13, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the 112 rejection previously raised. That rejection is respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome the 101 rejections previously raised. Those rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome the 103 rejections previously raised. Those rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 21 January 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101 Applicant argues that Claim 1 does not recite any of the types of activities recognize din the MPEP as managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between people. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(c) explicitly states that the sub-grouping “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The specific examples of those types of activities, teaching and following rules or instructions may not include a scheduling or slot allocation example, however, conceptually, the ability to allocate slots in a work plan to an agent based on the results of an analysis is interpreted as a series of rules and instructions, i.e. an analytic results based allocation, as well as being related to social activities, i.e. an agent work plan, work being the social activity.
Additionally, applicant argues that the dependent claims are not directed to mathematical concepts. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First off, the rejection specifically recites that the claims narrow the recited abstract idea, which is a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g. describing the parameters, constraints, inputs, generated work plan patterns based on a variety of information and data and further narrows the recited by describing mathematical concepts. The claims explicitly recite executing a greedy heuristic, and solving a linear program, both of which are mathematical formulas or calculations.
Applicant argues that the claims as a whole indicate integration into a practical application. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims, like Parker v. Flook, expressly recite details on how the system generates a set of work pattern plans. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not expressly recite any details of how the computer system performs the generation process. It details the optimization methodology relating to generating patterns by making determinations, solving a model and allocating plan slots, however all steps are merely performed “by the computing system”. The use of a computer in a generalized fashion does not meaningfully limit the otherwise abstract claims. In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of the claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e. through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations.
Applicant argues that by imposing constraints and reducing the set of generated work plan patterns to be analyzed by the model executed by the computer system, the claims represent an improvement in the operation of the computing system itself, by enabling the system to operate more efficiency. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is a conflated 2A prong 1/2B argument. Utilizing the computer less or requiring the computer to perform fewer calculations does not improve the function of the computer itself or any other additional element. There is no improvement to any technology or technological process and any improvement in the ability to allocate slots in a schedule is wholly contained within the abstraction, as the claims utilize current technologies to perform the abstract limitations of the claim.
Applicant argues that under step 2B the claims recite significantly more and that the requirements of the Berkheimer Memo were not met. Examiner respectfully disagrees. All additional elements recited in the independent claims were considered high level recitations that were merely “apply it” on a computer types of integration, see MPEP 2106.05f. The dependent claims included limitations that were considered high level recitations that were treated as insignificant extra solution activity and when reconsidered under 2B were interpretated as well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. This was supported in the rejection by specifically citing to court decisions in MPEP 2106.05d including Symantec, TLI and OIP Tech.
Applicant argues that like Desjardin, the claims are directed to a complex algorithm and are eligible under 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Desjardins Memo also explicitly states that procedurally, nothing has changed. This decision merely provides a machine learning type example of a technological improvement that was added into the MPEP. The instant application’s claims are in no way factually comparable to Desjardins. Desjardins claims, and supports in the specification, training a machine learning model on a series of tasks in order to improve how the machine learning model itself operates, including training the learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge of previous tasks to overcome an explicitly recited technological problem of “catastrophic forgetting”. The instant application’s claims do not relate to catastrophic forgetting nor do they demonstrate an improvement to the functioning of the model itself or any other technology. The specification does not provide support outlining an improvement to the function of the computer itself resulting from an explicitly detailed technological problem. The 101 rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Regarding the 103, applicant argues that the amended claims, specifically the limitations for determining whether two generated work patterns are symmetric and removing one of the symmetric patterns, are patentable over the cited art. This argument has been fully considered but is directed to the newly amended claim limitations that had not yet been examined in the non-final office action and is therefore moot in view of the new/updated grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims. See below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 November 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the initial disclosure but prior to the close of prosecution. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 15 recite as a whole a method of organizing human activity because the claims recite a method for optimizing slot allocations for agent work plan assignments in contact centers by generating a predetermined number of work plan patterns, determining whether two patterns are symmetric and removing any symmetric patterns from the generated patterns for analysis, solving a pattern selection model to determine a type and number of plan patterns to be used, and allocating agent work plan slots based on the selection model solving by defining agents that can be assigned to each work plan. This methodology illustrates organizing activity relating to managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions by indicating subject matter relating to a series of instructions or rules for allocating or scheduling agents to work plan slots based on analysis of patterns. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer system does not take the claims out of the abstract idea grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of optimizing slot allocations for agent work plan assignments in a computerized environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Reciting that the generating, solving and allocating are done “by the computing system” are considered merely “apply it” on a computer, see MPEP2106.05f. The additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing or implementing the abstract idea. The claims fail to recite any improvements to another technology, technical field or to the functioning of the computer itself. There is no use of a particular machine or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing and/or no additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to step 2A, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally apply the concept of allocating slots in a work plan to agents based on analyzed patterns in a computer system environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims amounts to significantly more and the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-20 include all of the limitations of the independent claims and therefore recite the same abstract idea. These claims merely narrow the abstract idea by describing the objective function parameters, constraints, model inputs, determinations, heuristics, results, patterns, data and linear program. Specific objective functions, heuristics and linear programming that can be solved can further be considered mathematical concepts, which are also abstract ideas. The same additional elements are considered to “apply it” and “field of use” similar to the independent claims above as there are no details given that transform the claims into a patent eligible invention. Describing a tiered data structure for storing data is considered insignificant extra solution activity since it is merely the gathering/receipt/transmission of data. When reconsidered under step 2B this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the data structure for storing is performed by anything other than a generic off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs court decisions indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission of data over a network is well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are considered ineligible under 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aykin (US 10,819,827) in view of Barni (US 2005/0177409).
As per Claim 1 Aykin teaches:
A method of optimizing slot allocations for agent work plan assignments in contact centers, the method comprising:
generating, by a computing system, a predetermined number of work plan patterns, (Aykin in at least Col. 8:63-Col. 9:14 describes generating all possible combinations of work and day off patterns) including determining whether two generated work plan patterns are symmetric and removing, in response to a determination that two generate work plan patterns are symmetric, one of the symmetric work plan patterns from the generated work plan patterns for analysis by a pattern selection model (Aykin in at least Col. 10:36-57, Col. 21:38-67 and Claim 1 describe determining if all agent requirements are met in every planning period and when they are eliminating, i.e. removing, all redundant agent tour schedules that do not create shortages in any period when removed by lowering the values of related shift, break and work pattern variables and stopping with the integer feasible solution found, redundant tours are considered functionally equivalent to symmetric work plan patterns because the instant application’s specification in at least [0127] describes two symmetric patterns as when the two patterns can provide the same coverage, e.g. duplicate or redundant);
solving, by the computing system, a pattern selection model based on the generated work plan patterns to determine a type and number of work plan patterns to be used for group resource scheduling, wherein the pattern selection model includes a plurality of constraints and at least one objective function (Aykin in at least Col. 8:63-Col. 11:67 describes solving models based on patterns to make determinations, Col. 13:50-55, Col. 16:16-26, Col. 18:21-33); and
allocating, by the computing system, work plan slots based on the solved pattern selection model by defining a number of resources that can be assigned to each work plan pattern of the plurality of work plan patterns (Aykin in at least Fig. 3 and Col. 5:23-53, Col. 6:48-Col. 7:39, Fig. 3 and Col. 8:1-46, Col. 9:15-65, Col. 11:1-67 describe allocating time periods or time windows based on solved optimization models by defining agents or users available to each pattern and plan that satisfies constraints).
Aykin describes groups including tour groups and skill groups for server scheduling but does not explicitly recite that the type and number of patterns selected/solved are to be used for each agent bid group of a plurality of agent bid groups that defines a distinct group of agents that can be assigned. However, Barni teaches a method and system for schedule bidding for agents. Barni further teaches:
selecting a schedule pattern set to be used for each agent bid group of a plurality of agent bid groups, and wherein each agent bid group of the plurality of agent bid groups defines a distinct group of agents (Barni in at least [0009, 0010, 0013, 0019, 0029-0036] describe selecting a set of schedule patterns to be bid upon by a plurality of employees or a particular group of agents, [0065-0066, 0075-0078] describes selecting schedule pattern set display and agents that are to be assigned to the schedules using the select agents page and that management unit can be a group of agents, determining whether agents have bid on the selected pattern set or not, see also [0080-0096] describing identifying a group of agents).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to solve a model using constraints and an objective function for resource assignment optimization to include techniques for optimizing assignments in contact centers where bidding is done by agents, who may be grouped, in order to determine optimal work plans based on patterns because each of the elements were known, but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same function as they did individually. By incorporating agent bid groups when solving to determine a type and number of work patterns the combination enables schedules that not only optimize priority but also assigns a schedule to each entity based on their bids, improving overall user satisfaction.
As per Claim 2 Aykin teaches:
wherein the at least one objective function is based on an understaffing parameter and an overstaffing parameter (Aykin in at least Col. 8:36-55 describes optimization based on over staffing or under staffing where staffing overages and shortages are assessed based on staffing requirements).
As per Claim 3 Aykin teaches:
wherein the plurality of constraints includes a constraint that all available time must be assigned to planning groups (Aykin in at least Col. 14:29-34 describes constraints that ensure that the number of servers using a tour group does not exceed the maximum number of servers available to schedule using that tour group and that a minimum number of schedules are created to schedule must work servers if specified for a tour group).
Aykin describes groups including tour groups and skill groups for server scheduling but does not explicitly recite that the type and number of patterns selected/solved are to be used for each agent bid group of a plurality of agent bid groups that defines a distinct group of agents that can be assigned. However, Barni teaches a method and system for schedule bidding for agents. Barni further teaches:
agent bid group time must be assigned (Barni in at least [0009, 0010, 0013, 0019, 0029-0036] describe selecting a set of schedule patterns to be bid upon by a plurality of employees or a particular group of agents, [0065-0066, 0075-0078] describes selecting schedule pattern set display and agents that are to be assigned to the schedules using the select agents page and that management unit can be a group of agents, determining whether agents have bid on the selected pattern set or not, see also [0080-0096] describing identifying a group of agents).
Barni is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 4 Aykin teaches:
wherein the plurality of constraints includes a constraint that a number of slots assigned to the work plan patterns for resources is equal to a number of resources (Aykin in at least Col. 14:29-34 describes constraints that ensure that the number of servers using a tour group does not exceed the maximum number of servers available to schedule using that tour group and that a minimum number of schedules are created to schedule must work servers if specified for a tour group).
Aykin describes groups including tour groups and skill groups for server scheduling but does not explicitly recite that the type and number of patterns selected/solved are to be used for each agent bid group of a plurality of agent bid groups that defines a distinct group of agents that can be assigned. However, Barni teaches a method and system for schedule bidding for agents. Barni further teaches:
agent bid groups (Barni in at least [0009, 0010, 0013, 0019, 0029-0036] describe selecting a set of schedule patterns to be bid upon by a plurality of employees or a particular group of agents, [0065-0066, 0075-0078] describes selecting schedule pattern set display and agents that are to be assigned to the schedules using the select agents page and that management unit can be a group of agents, determining whether agents have bid on the selected pattern set or not, see also [0080-0096] describing identifying a group of agents).
Barni is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 5 Aykin teaches:
wherein the pattern selection model includes as inputs at least one of capabilities of the agents, a number of slots to be assigned for each agent bid group of the plurality of agent bid groups, work plan patterns for each agent bid group of the plurality of agent bid groups, or a workload for each planning group (Aykin in at least Col. 17:37-50 describes the model as including inputs based on a variety of criteria including resource capabilities, Col. 14:29-34 describes constraints that ensure that the number of servers using a tour group does not exceed the maximum number of servers available to schedule using that tour group and that a minimum number of schedules are created to schedule must work servers if specified for a tour group).
Aykin describes groups including tour groups and skill groups for server scheduling but does not explicitly recite that the type and number of patterns selected/solved are to be used for each agent bid group of a plurality of agent bid groups that defines a distinct group of agents that can be assigned. However, Barni teaches a method and system for schedule bidding for agents. Barni further teaches:
agents (Barni in at least [0009, 0010, 0013, 0019, 0029-0036] describe selecting a set of schedule patterns to be bid upon by a plurality of employees or a particular group of agents, [0065-0066, 0075-0078] describes selecting schedule pattern set display and agents that are to be assigned to the schedules using the select agents page and that management unit can be a group of agents, determining whether agents have bid on the selected pattern set or not, see also [0080-0096] describing identifying a group of agents).
Barni is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 6 Aykin teaches:
wherein determining the resource work plan slots comprises executing a greedy heuristic to solve for each resource (Aykin in at least Col. 16:56-Col. 17:24 describe executing a solution algorithm including heuristics to solve for optimal solutions).
Aykin describes groups including tour groups and skill groups for server scheduling but does not explicitly recite that the type and number of patterns selected/solved are to be used for each agent bid group of a plurality of agent bid groups that defines a distinct group of agents that can be assigned. However, Barni teaches a method and system for schedule bidding for agents. Barni further teaches:
agent bid groups (Barni in at least [0009, 0010, 0013, 0019, 0029-0036] describe selecting a set of schedule patterns to be bid upon by a plurality of employees or a particular group of agents, [0065-0066, 0075-0078] describes selecting schedule pattern set display and agents that are to be assigned to the schedules using the select agents page and that management unit can be a group of agents, determining whether agents have bid on the selected pattern set or not, see also [0080-0096] describing identifying a group of agents).
Barni is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 7 Aykin does not explicitly recite but Barni further teaches:
further comprising pre-processing, by the computing system, non-biddable agents; and wherein generating the predetermined number of work plan patterns comprises generating the predetermined number of work plan patterns subsequent to pre-processing the non-biddable agents (Barni in at least [0059-0065] describes a bid display screen and the ability to sort, e.g. pre-process, and rank schedules for agents so that the bid field indicates priorities, [0074-0081] describes the bid field and whether an agent has bid or is permitted to bid, has seniority or any other supervisor selected metric may be used to rank agents and performance and determine bid results).
Barni is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 8 Aykin teaches:
wherein generating the predetermined number of work plan patterns comprises generating a plurality of day patterns, wherein each day pattern of the plurality of day patterns is indicative of a unique set of working days and days off for a week (Aykin in at least Col. 8:63-Col. 9:14 describes generating day patterns indicating a set of working and off days).
As per Claim 9 Aykin teaches:
wherein generating the predetermined number of work plan patterns comprises generating a plurality of shift identifier (ID) patterns based on the plurality of day patterns, wherein each shift ID pattern of the plurality of shift ID patterns is indicative of a shift ID for each working day in a week (Aykin in at least Col. 13:15-50, describe generating shift time on a certain day for a designated shift template and tour group for a certain time interval, see also Col. 16:16-27, 18:17-33).
As per Claim 10 Aykin teaches:
wherein generating the predetermined number of work plan patterns comprises generating a plurality of shift start patterns based on the plurality of shift ID patterns, wherein each shift start pattern of the plurality of shift start patterns is indicative of a shift start time and a shift end time for each shift ID in the work plan (Aykin in at least Col. 13:15-50, describe generating shift time on a certain day for a designated shift template and tour group for a certain time interval, see also Col. 16:16-27, 18:17-33).
As per Claim 11 Aykin teaches:
wherein generating the predetermined number of work plan patterns comprises generating a plurality of work plan patterns based on the plurality of shift start patterns, wherein each work plan pattern of the plurality of work plan patterns is indicative of a shift start pattern assigned to each day of the week (Aykin in at least Col. 13:15-50, describe generating shift time on a certain day for a designated shift template and tour group for a certain time interval, see also Col. 16:16-27, 18:17-33).
As per Claim 13 Aykin teaches:
further comprising determining, by the computing system, forecast data representative of a week at a business; and wherein generating the predetermined number of work plan patterns comprises generating the predetermined number of work plan patterns based on the forecast data (Aykin in at least Col. 5:23-31 describes utilizing forecasts of a number of requests, average service time, etc. with staffing models in order to optimize a staffing solution).
Aykin does not explicitly recite that the business is a contact center. However Barni teaches scheduling bidding for a contact center in at least [0009, 0012, 0024]. Barni is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 14 Aykin teaches:
wherein solving the pattern selection model based on the generated work plan patterns comprises solving a linear program (Aykin in at least Col. 16:56-Col. 17:24 describe executing a solution algorithm including heuristics to solve for optimal solutions).
As per Claims 15-20 the limitations are substantially similar to those set forth in Claims 1 and 8-12 and are therefore rejected based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejections of Claims 1 and 8-12 above.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aykin (US 10,819,827) in view of Barni (US 2005/0177409) further in view of Pahud et al. (US 2024/0259250).
As per Claim 12 Neither Aykin nor Barni explicitly recite utilizing a tiered data structure. However, Pahud teaches an agent instance live monitoring system for contact centers. Pahud further teaches:
utilizing a first tiered list data structure for storing data associated with the plurality of day patterns, a second tiered list data structure for storing data associated with the plurality of shift ID patterns, and a third tiered list data structure for storing data associated with the plurality of shift start patterns (Pahud in at least [0131 and 0138] describes a tiered network architecture and multi-tier network that are used for scheduling and management processes such as those illustrated and described in at least Fig. 1 and [0126 and 0161].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the architecture of Aykin/Barni to include the techniques for utilized a tiered architecture because each of the elements were known, but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same function as they did individually. By utilizing a tiered data structure, the combination enables organizations to store high value frequently accessed data on high performance media and less critical data on more cost effective storage, thus improving overall cost optimization for a business.
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 STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623