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 . Claims 1-6 and 8-11 have been reviewed and are under consideration by this office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/27/2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final Office action. Applicant, on 07/27/2026, amended claims and cancelled claims 7 and 12. Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are received and acknowledged.
The 103 rejection was overcome in the Non-Final office action dated 11/04/2025.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that claims are not directed towards merely managing schedules but further a specific computerized process for operating intraday schedule optimization in real time for a contact-center schedule having one or more time intervals, retrieving current-state data from an agents-database, generating a current-schedule-state node, generating a directed graph of updated-schedule-state real-time scheduling, generating a directed-graph of a plurality of updated schedule state nodes, applying a model to predict SLA level, and applying a heuristic search algorithm and as such the claims do not recite any of the judicial exceptions, etc. and as such are not directed towards an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The real-time aspect (implying a general purpose computer), WFM application, databases are additional elements which are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) while the remaining limitations are all concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper) and are further directed towards certain methods of organizing human activities.
Applicant contends that the claims are not mere observations/judgements/etc. as the claims the edge indicates a cost of change…, a heuristic search graph algorithm, SLA threshold, and claims require generation and traversal of a directed graph.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of directed graphs, heuristic algorithms, updating schedules, etc. are all concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (via pen and paper) and would be further mathematical concepts as recited.
Applicant contends that the claims are integrated into a practical application as the claims applies a graph-based optimization technique to contact-center schedule-state data and then updates an operative schedule via a WFM application. The directed graph is not incidental. Each updated-schedule-state node represents a contact-center state after a change in agents activities and includes a distance between actual staffing and staffing requirements, etc. Applicant contends the claims are applied through a specifically recited graph and update process that improves scheduling in real-time.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements below are each identified and are determined to be performing steps that would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The remaining concepts are all part of the abstract idea as stated above.
Applicant contends the specification discloses a technical solution considers multiple actions as a combined problem set and further describes nodes, edges, heuristic graph, etc.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed techniques improve upon the evaluation and selection of schedule actions based on requirements, costs, SLA, etc and do not constitute a technological improvement but merely improves upon the abstract idea itself. The alleged improvement is to the workforce scheduling process being performed rather than the underlying computer or other technology.
Applicant contends that for similar reasons the claims recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant further contends that the overall combination provides more than a generic computer as a tool.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract idea is identified below in the full 101 analysis. The additional elements (i.e. computerized; real-time; agents-database; storing… in a database; WFM application) are considered both individually as well as in combination and determined to be performing steps that would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant contends that the ordered combination is not merely conventional or generic as evidenced by the Examiner withdrawing the 103 Rejections.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The absence of a prior art rejection does not establish the claims to be eligible under 101 analysis or that the claimed computer implementation is non-conventional for the purposes of eligibility analysis. Even assuming the claims are novel/non-obvious does not establish the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The 101 rejection is maintained 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 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim(s) is/are directed to statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One – The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely in independent claims recite a series of steps for the abstract idea recited below.
Regarding Claim 1, (additional elements bolded)
A computerized-method for operating intraday schedule optimization in real-time for a schedule having one or more time-intervals, in a contact-center, said computerized-method comprising:
retrieving current-state data of the contact center for each time-interval in the schedule from an agents-database;
wherein current-state data comprising: a) staffing requirements for each skill; b) agents activities; and c) agents skills for each agent;
generating a current-schedule-state node that includes the received current-state delta of the contact center;
generating a directed-graph of a plurality of updated-schedule-state nodes;
wherein each updated-schedule-state node in the updated-schedule-state nodes indicates a state of the contact-center represented after a change in agents activities and a distance between actual staffing and the staffing requirements for all skills, and
wherein each edge in the directed-graph of the plurality of updated-schedule-state nodes indicates a cost of the change in agents-activities by moving between two nodes in the directed-graph of updated-schedule-state node
applying a model to predict Service Level Agreement (SLA) level for each updated-schedule-state node in the generated directed-graph;
applying a heuristic search graph algorithm on the generated directed-graph of the plurality of updated-schedule-state nodes based on the SLA level of each updated-schedule-state node in the generated directed-graph as a heuristic to yield a path in the directed-graph of updated-schedule-state nodes;
wherein the path is combined of one or more edges, and
wherein said heuristic search graph algorithm on the generated directed-graph of updated-schedule-state nodes comprising:
a. extending the updated-schedule-state node having the SLA level above the preconfigured SLA-threshold in the directed-graph of updated-schedule-state nodes and minimum accumulated cost to yield the path from the current-state node to the updated-schedule-state node having the SLA level above the preconfigured SLA- threshold; and
b. storing all updated-schedule-state nodes in a database as the path, and
updating the schedule in the contact center based on the change in agents activities pf each edge in the yielded path in the updated-schedule-state nodes in the path,
wherein the updating of the schedule in the contact center is operated via a Workforce Management (WFM) application.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as the claims are directed towards retrieving current-state data, generating a current-schedule state node; generating a directed graph of nodes; applying a model to predict updated state nodes; applying a heuristic search graph algorithm; and updating the schedule all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper).
Further the claims are directed towards the abstract idea grouping of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as the claims are directed towards managing work schedules (See Specification, [03]).
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mathematical concepts” – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; as the claims recite at least generating a current-schedule-state node; generating a directed-graph of a plurality of updated-schedule-state nodes; applying a heuristic search graph algorithm on the generated directed-graph, etc.
Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims utilize at least the additional elements bolded above. The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B - The claim does 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 are just “apply it” on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claim(s) 3-4, 6, 8-10, and 11. the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims (i.e. database).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, the claim further recite the additional element(s) of a machine learning model (i.e. recited at a high level of generality) This element(s) is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, the claim further recite the additional element(s) of a A* search algorithm (i.e. recited at a high level of generality) This element(s) is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY L GUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30-4:30.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JEREMY L GUNN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights