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 amendments and remarks filed on 2 March 2026.
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended.
Claims 1-18 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 have necessitated new grounds of rejection under 103, see below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2 March 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are sufficient to overcome the previous 101 rejection. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional detecting step does not transform the claim into a patent eligible invention but describes an additional abstract idea step that is considered to be performable the same way mentally or manually and/or is merely part of the instructions or methods of organizing human activity since it is a mere comparison that is part of the scheduling function. The 101 rejection is respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Regarding the 103 rejection, applicant argues that the previously cited references fail to teach the amended claim limitations including a detected deviation that is a basis for an end time as part of an auxiliary segment. This argument is directed solely to the amended claim limitations that were not previously examined and is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims. See new grounds of rejection set forth 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 1-18 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, generating an auxiliary segment in a schedule and providing the 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 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. 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.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 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 1-18 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 1-7, 9-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sardiga et al. (US 2025/0103975) in view of Rodden et al. (US 2019/0334907) further in view of Bonomo (US 2020/0380436).
As per Claim 1 Sardiga teaches:
A method in a computing device, comprising:
obtaining schedule data for a facility, the schedule data including a plurality of segments, each segment having (i) a start time, (ii) an end time, and (iii) a worker identifier assigned to the segment from a plurality of worker identifiers (Sardiga in at least Figs. 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11 and 17 and [0103-0105] illustrate and describe receiving staffing and assignment data for a facility including start and end times for jobs, work orders and shifts, as well as employee/worker/operator user names and identifiers that can be assigned to stations, shifts, jobs, work orders, etc.);
obtaining presence data including, for each of the plurality of worker identifiers, whether a corresponding worker is present at a facility (Sardiga in at least Fig. 5, 14, 15 and 16-17 and [0100, 0103, 0108, 0111] illustrate and describe obtaining presence data including planned and real time absentee and attendance information);
detecting, from the presence data, a worker present at the facility and a need for reassignment or updating (Sardiga in at least Figs. 5 and 14-17 and [0100, 0103, 106-0108, 0111, 0114-0115] illustrate and describe detecting real time presence data as absentee and attendance information that can be used in a re-assignment or updated staffing process/plan);
generating an auxiliary segment having (i) a start time based on the presence data, (ii) an end time based on a comparison of the schedule data with the presence data, and (iii) the first worker identifier (Sardiga in at least Figs. 5, 14-17 and [0103, 0106, 0114-0116] illustrate and describe staffing plan day-of staffing assignments and adjustments based on real time attendance and absentee monitoring, this can include creating a new staffing plan or new assignments with designated start and end times as well as identified workers, performing re-assignments or updating/revising staffing plans); and
providing the auxiliary segment to a task allocator with the schedule data (Sardiga in at least Figs. 5, 7, 14-17 and [0103, 0106-0107, 0110, 0113-0116] illustrate and describe generating updated, new or re-run scheduling/staffing plans with adjustments and the ability to display and control the output of the new or adjusted staff assignment for production schedules and transmitting the schedule and staffing plan to another application).
Sardiga describes detecting and utilizing worker presence data to determine whether and what adjustments or rescheduling needs to occur. Sardiga does not explicitly recite identify a worker that is present but unassigned. However, Rodden teaches a resource optimization system and method and further describes:
detecting, from the presence data, a worker present at the facility, having a first worker identifier that is not assigned to any of the segments in the schedule data (Rodden in at least Figs. 7-9 and [0213, 0220-0223, 0432] describe the ability to determine that a user is available, e.g. has open time slots in their schedule and is on site, when the user has free time and is located in the facility, the system can identify these times and suggest entries that are optimal)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to detect and utilize presence data for reassignment and schedule adjustment decisions to include the techniques for identifying free time slots, e.g. when a worker is not assigned to a specific tasks, and modify the schedule and assignments because by reducing downtime or the time workers are not assigned/scheduled, the combination optimizes both human and task allocation and productivity.
Neither Sardiga nor Rodden explicitly recite comparing schedule data with presence data to detect a deviation indicative of a discrepancy between the two types of data or using the deviation as a basis for an end time. However, Bonomo teaches employee geo-tracking for determining a level of risk of wage and hour litigation. Bonomo further teaches:
detecting, based on the comparison of the schedule data with the presence data, a schedule deviation indicative of a discrepancy between the schedule data and the presence data and generating an auxiliary segment having an end time based on a type of the schedule deviation (Bonomo in at least [0056-0057, 0059, 0063, 0067-0069] describes detecting presence data the ability to detect discrepancies between the recorded presence periods and the work schedule by comparing the stored presence entries in the presence file with the work schedule data structure, additionally the presence file can store an updated time the employee ends a presence period at any geofence and jobsite, additionally the violations file and risk files can store any detected violation or determined risk utilizing the end date information)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to obtain schedule and presence data, to detect worker presence then generate and provide auxiliary segments to a task allocator to include the ability to compare schedule and presence data to detect deviations indicative of a discrepancy between the schedule and presence data because each of the elements were known but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements a claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same function as they did individually. By detecting deviations indicative of discrepancies, the combination enables companies to determine risk or litigation exposure so that proper mitigation techniques or actions can be taken to correct the issue and reduce risk.
As per Claim 2 Sardiga further teaches:
at the task allocator, allocating a task to one of the worker identifiers based on the schedule data and the auxiliary segment and transmitting a notification to a client computing device corresponding to the one worker identifier (Sardiga in at least Figs. 1, 5-7, 11,14-15 and 17 and [0103, 0110, 0112-0113] describe assigning tasks to identified workers based on schedule data and updated schedules/staffing and transmitting updates of staffing and assignments accordingly).
As per Claim 3 Sardiga further teaches:
wherein generating the auxiliary segment includes: detecting, based on a comparison of the schedule data with the presence data, that a second worker identifier assigned to one of the segments corresponds to a worker not present at the facility (Sardiga in at least Figs. 5 and 14-17 and [0100, 0103, 106-0108, 0111, 0114-0115] illustrate and describe detecting real time presence data as absentee and attendance information that can be used in a re-assignment or updated staffing process/plan); and
generating the end time for the auxiliary segment based on the end time to the one of the segments (Sardiga in at least Figs. 5, 7, 14-17 and [0103, 0106-0107, 0110, 0113-0116] illustrate and describe generating updated, new or re-run scheduling/staffing plans, including end times, with adjustments and the ability to display and control the output of the new or adjusted staff assignment for production schedules).
As per Claim 4 Sardiga further teaches:
obtaining updated presence data subsequent to obtaining the presence data (Sardiga in at least Figs. 5 and 14-17 and [0100, 0103, 106-0108, 0111, 0114-0115] illustrate and describe detecting real time presence data as absentee and attendance information that can be used in a re-assignment or updated staffing process/plan);
determining, based on the updated presence data, whether the end time of the auxiliary segment remains valid; and when the end time of the auxiliary segment is invalid, generating a new end time for the auxiliary segment (Sardiga in at least Figs. 5, 7, 14-17 and [0103, 0106-0107, 0110, 0113-0116] illustrate and describe determining whether to generate updated, new or re-run scheduling/staffing plans, including end times, based on day of attendance and absentee data and criteria evaluations, the new or updated schedules/plans include adjustments to timing and staffing and the ability to display and control the output of the new or adjusted staff assignment for production schedules).
As per Claim 5 Sardiga further teaches:
wherein determining whether the end time remains valid comprises: determining whether the worker corresponding to the second worker identifier remains absent from the facility (Sardiga in at least Figs. 5 and 14-17 and [0100, 0103, 106-0108, 0111, 0114-0115] illustrate and describe detecting real time presence data as absentee and attendance information that can be used in a re-assignment or updated staffing process/plan).
As per Claim 6 Sardiga in at least Figs. 5, 7, 14-17 and [0103, 0106-0107, 0110, 0113-0116] illustrate and describe determining whether to generate updated, new or re-run scheduling/staffing plans, including end times, based on day of attendance and absentee data and criteria evaluations, the new or updated schedules/plans include adjustments to timing and staffing. Sardiga does not explicitly recite that the new end time comprises applying a default time increment.
However, Rodden teaches a resource optimization method and further describes:
wherein generating the new end time for the auxiliary segment comprises: applying a default time increment to a current time (Rodden in at least [0202] describes how the system may have default time and/or activity based activity level adjustments so that at any time adjustments to increase or decrease a level based on user preference can be made automatically).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to generate new end times for new or updated scheduling/staffing to include the techniques for applying default time increments for certain adjustments automatically because by reducing the time required to make changes, the combination optimizes both human and task allocation and productivity while improving overall scheduling efficiency.
As per Claim 7 Sardiga teaches in at least Fig. 6, 9, 11-13 feedback, production schedule, and line level displays and a workflow for displaying performance data including % completion, delays, and whether priorities need to be adjusted as well as scheduled vs. actual timing information.
Sardiga does not explicitly recite evaluating a schedule deviation with a terminal deficit and results in the end time being adjusted. However, Rodden teaches resource optimization that analyzes schedules for delays and deviations. Rodden further describes:
detecting, based on the comparison of the schedule data with the presence data, a schedule deviation including a scheduled segment with a terminal deficit; and generating the end time according to the end time of the scheduled segment with the terminal deficit (Rodden in at least [0261, 0441-0442, 0450, 0452, 0554, 0560, 0602] describe determining deviations from scheduled activities and abnormal conditions including delays, late arrivals, etc. and the ability to update and adjust the schedule and system accordingly).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to generate new end times for new or updated scheduling/staffing based on presence data to include the techniques for detecting deviations and making adjustments automatically in response because by reducing the time required to make changes, the combination optimizes both human and task allocation and productivity while improving overall scheduling efficiency while reducing delays and downtime.
As per Claim 9 Sardiga further teaches:
wherein the presence data indicates whether each worker is present at the facility via the presence or absence of an arrival time for the corresponding worker identifier (Sardiga in at least Figs. 5 and 14-17 and [0100, 0103, 106-0108, 0111, 0114-0115] illustrate and describe detecting real time presence data as absentee and attendance information that can be used in a re-assignment or updated staffing process/plan).
As per Claims 10-16 and 18 the limitations are substantially similar to those set forth in Claims 1-7 and 9 and are therefore rejected based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-7 and 9 above.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sardiga et al. (US 2025/0103975) in view of Rodden et al. (US 2019/0334907) further in view of Bonomo (US 2020/0380436) further in view of Hastings (US 2024/0330807).
As per Claim 8 Sardiga further teaches:
obtaining historical schedule data; analyzing, based on a comparison of the schedule data and the historical schedule data, (Sardiga in at least Figs. 6, 9 and [0081-0083] describe performing historical analysis by comparing obtained historical data to schedule data);
None of Sardiga, Rodden nor Bonomo explicitly recite identifying or detecting a staffing shortage based on the historical data and adjusting end time accordingly. However, Hastings teaches resource allocation and further describes:
detecting, based on a comparison of the schedule data and the historical schedule data, a current scheduled shortage relative to the historical schedule data; and generating the end time according to the current scheduled shortage (Hastings in at least Figs. 2 and 17 and [0054, 0088, 0176-0178, 0186-0194, 0204-0205, 0207, 0229] describe detecting and determining, through comparison, staffing needs and the ability of the staffing module to send scheduling requests, update the scheduling and make adjustments accordingly) .
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to generate new end times for new or updated scheduling/staffing based on historical analysis to include the techniques for detecting staffing shortages and adjusting the schedules accordingly because by minimizing or optimizing deviations in start or end times of services, the combination minimizes cost and optimizes wait times (Hastings [0045]).
As per Claim 17 the limitations are substantially similar to those set forth in Claim 8 and are therefore rejected based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 8 above.
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
Prosecution Insights