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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 July 2026 has been entered.
This action is in reply to the entered RCE.
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 11 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome the 101 rejection previously raised. These rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks are sufficient to overcome the 103 rejections previously raised. None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach the claimed invention including pairing a worker identifier with a type of schedule deviation selected from a plurality of types relative to historical schedule data and generating an auxiliary segment having a start time based on presence data and end time based on the type of schedule deviation and the first worker identifier. The 103 rejections are respectfully withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 14 July 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are directed to a specific technical process for dynamically augmenting schedule data in a computing device and the steps could not be done mentally. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of a computer in a generalized fashion or described as a particular technical environment does not meaningfully limit the implementation of an otherwise abstract claim. In order for the use of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed methodology to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly. Merely performing steps “automatically” is not sufficient to integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application nor does it amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05f. The fact that the specification describes that prior approaches couldn’t perform the steps automatically does not demonstrate a technical solution to a technical problem. Human managers previously performed the tasks, in the instant application they are merely applied “by a computer”. The claims do not establish a specific technical arrangement that implements the allocation process. The 101 rejection is respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
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, 3-10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1 and 10 recite limitations for obtaining data, detecting a schedule deviation indicative of a discrepancy based on a comparison of schedule data with presence data, detecting that a worker is unassigned, pairing worker identifiers with a type of schedule deviation selected from a plurality of deviation types, generating an auxiliary segment in a schedule, providing the segment by allocating a task to a worker identifier based on the schedule data and auxiliary segment. This is a method of managing interactions between people since it sets forth a series of instructions/rules for managing a schedule for a business and its workers. Additionally, the ability to obtain schedule and presence data and detect deviations and worker presence by examining data as well as generating a schedule segment, pairing an identifier with a type of deviation selected and allocating a task to a worker identifier could be considered mental processes since the steps merely demonstrate a series of observations and evaluations that could be performed the same way mentally or manually with pencil and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer device, communications interface and processor does not take the claims out of the abstract groupings. 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 evaluating worker presence, scheduling data and staffing needs to adjust a schedule in a computer environment. The claimed device, interface and processor are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the business scheduling process. Each of the additional components is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception in a generic computer environment with generic computer components. Transmitting a notification is also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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 with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or linking the steps to a generic computer environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the transmitting step that was considered extra solution activity in Step 2A above, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the device for transmitting is anything other than a generic off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05d indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Dependent claims 3-9 and 12-18 include all of the limitations of claim 1 and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims merely narrow the recited abstract idea by describing additional task allocation, transmitting notifications, detecting/determining presence, generating timing adjustments, obtaining updated data, making determinations of validity, generating new end times, using default increments for adjustments, detecting deviations, and using historical data to analyze shortages to make adjustments. No additional elements are recited that transform the claims into a patent eligible invention but instead merely use the computer as a tool to perform a method which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor does it amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3-10 and 12-18 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights