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 the Claims
Claims 1, 7, 8, 13, 19, and 20 are amended. Claims 9 is canceled. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 11/13/2025, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that, under Step 2A Prong One, the claims are directed to more than an abstract idea because the level of data integration and analysis is technical and cannot be reduced to mental processes human activity. Examiner disagrees. The Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Here, it is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 (and similar claims 13 and 20) focuses on an abstract idea. Applicant’s specification discloses in [0017] “Systems and techniques are described herein supportive of field workforce management and dispatching. The systems and techniques described herein support determining an optimal set of routes for a fleet of personnel (e.g., crews, vehicles, and the like) to serve a given set of customers, each with specific demands, while minimizing the total cost. The systems and techniques support features capable of effectively modeling real-world constraints common to real life enterprises (e.g., modeling of real-life constraints). Non-limiting examples of the constraints include multiple time windows (e.g., time availabilities, operating hours, or the like), multiple depots (e.g., distribution centers) with heterogeneous vehicles, multiple commodities/crafts, synchronized visits, personnel availability (e.g., crew open shifts), and the like”. Also, in [0045]…“NP-hard problems may involve a significant amount of computational resources to solve according to some other approaches, and aspects of the MILP solver 215 support effective solving of NP-hard problems including a reduction in computational resources, reduced processing time, increased processing efficiency, and higher accuracy”. The invention and claims are drawn towards workforce management utilizing mixed-integer linear programming and the claims recite limitations that directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, behavior, relationships; business relations) as evidenced by limitations detailing generating a graph with a set of workers, customers, tasks associated with the customers based on customer information associated with the tasks and resource and budget information associated with the customers; a set of operation and business rules associated with the workers, customers, tasks used to generate a graph, and generating solutions associated with the managing and dispatching the set of workers. The claim limitations also directly correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as shown by the limitations generating outcomes based on observed and evaluated data. Lastly, the claim limitations correspond to mathematical concepts (mathematical calculations, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships), as evidenced by generating based on the graph a mixed-integer linear program (MILP) problem associated with completing the set of tasks, generating one or more solutions associated with dispatching and managing the set of workers in association with solving the MILP problem; generating an initial solution for solving the MILP problem based on processing, by a [solving engine], input data over a target temporal duration; generating the one or more solutions is based on processing, by the [MILP solver engine], at least a portion of the initial solution; and generating the one or more solutions is based on solving a set of linear equations comprised in the MILP problem. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Examiner also disagrees that the data integration and analysis is inherently technical and cannot be reduced to mental processes. The mixed-integer linear program (MILP) problem solving and contributing steps in the claim involves mathematical calculations as well as observation, evaluation judgment, and opinion. The steps may very well be performed via human mind. Further, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. If the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process (MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Here, the applicant recites the steps being performed on general computer components (e.g., a memory having one or more processors (claim 13), and a computer readable storage medium and processor (claim 20)). Thus, the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.
Applicant argues, under Step 2A Prong Two, that the claimed features provide improvements to another technology or technical field. Examiner disagrees. Providing improved scheduling and earlier task completion compared to some other approaches, and reducing time spent in solving the MILP problem, as applicant presents as the improvements, does not reflect an improvement in computers or technology. At best, the alleged improvements represent an improvement in the judicial exception itself. Improving the scheduling and task completion while reducing time spend in solving the problem may improve the managing of certain human activity and the mathematical concepts. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology (emphasis added). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology. Further, examiner cites from Trading Technologies, "We have also held that improving a user's experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality. For example, in Trading Techs. I, we held patent ineligible claims directed to a computer-based method for facilitating the placement of a trader's order. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. I). Although the claimed display purportedly 'assist[ed] traders in processing information more quickly,' we held that this purported improvement in user experience did not 'improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Id.; see also Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1381, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. II) (holding that claims 'focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly' did not constitute a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality)." Customedia Technologies v. Dish Network, 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Applicant further argues that their claims and invention reduce computing overhead. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Computing overhead is merely a combination of excess computation time, usage, or memory required to perform the specific task, which further indicates that the alleged improvement is an improvement in the business process (being performed via computer) rather than an improvement in the actual computer itself. Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also MPEP §2106.05(f).
Applicant argues that the claimed features add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (“WURC”). First, the consideration on whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry is only evaluated in Step 2B of the analysis, not in Step 2A Prong Two (see MPEP §2106.05(d)). Next, the courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application which includes: merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a directed graph, an extended knowledge graph, a solving engine and a MILP solver engine, a memory having one or more processors (claim 13), and a computer readable storage medium and processor (claim 20). The additional element of a solving engine and a MILP solver engine, a memory having one or more processors (claim 13), and a computer readable storage medium and processor (claim 20) are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. The graphs amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (field workforce management and dispatch). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. This response is also applicable to applicant’s argument that the features add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a use and practical application. Additionally producing tangible outcomes is no guarantee of eligibility. It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).
Applicant provides similar arguments regarding an improvement to technology for their argument under Step 2B which evaluates whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner provides that the responses above for Applicant’s arguments under Step 2A Prong Two are also applicable to their arguments under Step 2B. Regarding applicant’s argument of preemption, as stated by the CAFC, “while preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., No. 2014-1139, 2014-1144, slip op. at 14 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2015).
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 16, filed 11/13/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C.103 rejection of has been withdrawn.
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 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 recite a method (i.e. process), claims 13-19 recite a system (i.e. machine), and claim 20 recites a computer program product (i.e. machine or article of manufacture). Therefore claims 1-8 and 10-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1, 13, and 20 recite the limitations: generating a [directed graph] associated with a set of workers, a set of customers, and a set of tasks associated with the set of customers, based on: customer information associated with the set of tasks; and resource and budget information associated with the set of customers; generating an [extended knowledge graph] based on the [directed graph] and a set of operation and business rules, wherein the set of operation and business rules are associated with the set of workers, the set of customers, the set of tasks, and one or more facilities associated with the set of tasks; tracking movement of one or more workers of the set of workers to a first task among the set of tasks, tracking movement of the one or more workers between the first task and at least one other task of the set of tasks, or both based on the [extended knowledge graph]; generating, based on the [extended knowledge graph], a mixed-integer linear program (MILP) problem associated with completing the set of tasks; generating an initial solution for solving the MILP problem based on processing, by a [solving engine], input data over a target temporal duration; and generating, by an [MILP solver engine], one or more solutions associated with dispatching and managing the set of workers in association with solving the MILP problem, wherein: generating the one or more solutions is based on processing, by the [MILP solver engine], at least a portion of the initial solution; and generating the one or more solutions is based on solving a set of linear equations comprised in the MILP problem. The invention and claims are drawn towards workforce management utilizing mixed-integer linear programming and the claims recite limitations that directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, behavior, relationships; business relations) as evidenced by limitations detailing generating a graph with a set of workers, customers, tasks associated with the customers based on customer information associated with the tasks and resource and budget information associated with the customers; a set of operation and business rules associated with the workers, customers, tasks used to generate a graph, and generating solutions associated with the managing and dispatching the set of workers. The claim limitations also directly correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as shown by the limitations generating outcomes based on observed and evaluated data. Lastly, the claim limitations correspond to mathematical concepts (mathematical calculations, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships), as evidenced by generating based on the graph a mixed-integer linear program (MILP) problem associated with completing the set of tasks, generating one or more solutions associated with dispatching and managing the set of workers in association with solving the MILP problem; generating an initial solution for solving the MILP problem based on processing, by a [solving engine], input data over a target temporal duration; generating the one or more solutions is based on processing, by the [MILP solver engine], at least a portion of the initial solution; and generating the one or more solutions is based on solving a set of linear equations comprised in the MILP problem.
Note: The features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a directed graph, an extended knowledge graph, a solving engine and a MILP solver engine, a memory having one or more processors (claim 13), and a computer readable storage medium and processor (claim 20). The additional element of a solving engine and a MILP solver engine, a memory having one or more processors (claim 13), and a computer readable storage medium and processor (claim 20) are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. The graphs amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (field workforce management and dispatch). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 6 and 18 recite the limitations the MILP problem comprises a model comprising the set of workers, the set of customers, the set of tasks, the customer information, the resource and budget information, and the set of operation and business rules; and generating the one or more solutions is based on the model. The limitations are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above, and the model specifically corresponds to mathematical concepts. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14-17, and 19 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above, and/or additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14-17, and 19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes Phan (2022/0058590) which disclose a method for maintaining equipment in a geo-distributed system that includes a selection of quantities to optimize when adjusting a maintenance schedule of the geo-distributed system that includes multiple pieces of equipment that are spread over a geographical region, and wherein the maintenance schedule identifies when a set of maintenance tasks are executed at a first equipment from the geo-distributed system over a predetermined duration. The process further includes generating, by the processor, a mixed-integer linear program for optimizing the maintenance schedule using a set of predetermined constraints, executing the mixed-integer linear program via a mixed-integer linear program solver, and adjusting the maintenance schedule by selecting only a subset of the maintenance tasks. The prior art reference does not explicitly disclose the amended limitations of the applicant’s invention that includes tracking movement of one or more workers of the set of workers to a first task among the set of tasks, tracking movement of the one or more workers between the first task and at least one other task of the set of tasks, or both based on the extended knowledge graph.
The closest non-patent literature prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes the publication “A Crowd-Sensing Framework for Allocation of Time-Constrained and Location-Based Tasks” (Estrada, et. al.; 2020) which explores a service computing framework for time constrained-task allocation in location based crowd-sensing systems by relying on a recruitment algorithm that implements a multi-objective task allocation algorithm based on Particle Swarm Optimization, queuing schemes to handle efficiently the incoming sensing tasks in the server side and at the end-user side, a task delegation mechanism to avoid delaying or declining the sensing requests due to unforeseen user context, and a reputation management component to manage the reputation of users based on their sensing activities and task delegation. The prior art reference does not explicitly disclose the amended limitations of the applicant’s invention that includes tracking movement of one or more workers of the set of workers to a first task among the set of tasks, tracking movement of the one or more workers between the first task and at least one other task of the set of tasks, or both based on the extended knowledge graph.
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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628