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 1-2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20 have been reviewed and are under consideration by this office action.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. Applicant, on 07/22/2026, amended claims, and previously cancelled claims 3, 10, and 16. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are received and acknowledged.
The 103 Rejections are overcome in view of the amended claims and further the Applicant’s arguments. The 103 Rejections are withdrawn.
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 the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application further pointing to the 2019 Guidance.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite the additional elements of a processing device; system, comprising: a memory; and a processing device coupled to the memory, the processing device configured to; and computer-readable non-transitory storage medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to. 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) and as such do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant further contends that recited limitations is clearly a practical application and further points to the Specification paragraphs 10 and 11 asserting the claims allow efficient generation of workforce schedules and provides a specific improvement in which a computer solves scheduling problems.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the claimed elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. However, the asserted improvements result from limitations identified as part of the abstract idea itself. The additional elements recite mere computer components for performing scheduling operations. Thus the recited improvement merely improves upon the abstract idea itself and not the technology as a whole. Accordingly the additional elements when considered individually or in combination with the judicial exception does integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant contends that limitations generating one or more candidate shifts… is not well-understood, routine, or conventional (WURC).
Examiner finds the argument unpersuasive. The cited limitations are part of the abstract idea itself rather than an additional element. Accordingly, whether the limitation is WURC is not relevant to the Step 2B analysis. The WURC inquiry applies to additional elements beyond the judicial exception.
The 101 Rejection is updated and 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 1-2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20 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 Claims 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 independent Claims, (additional elements bolded)
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 15, A method, comprising: identifying, by a processing device, a plurality of variables associated with scheduling a plurality of workers to perform a plurality of jobs during respective shifts defined by corresponding time periods, wherein each variable of the plurality of variables is associated with a corresponding shift;
identifying a plurality of constraints associated with the plurality of variables; identifying a scheduling problem for optimizing an objective function defined on the plurality of variables subject to the plurality of constraints;
identifying, in a historic schedule assigning at least a subset of the plurality of workers to perform at least a subset of the plurality of jobs during a plurality of past time periods, a subset of jobs that were most frequently assigned to a particular worker;
identifying, in the historic schedule, a plurality of shifts during which the particular worker was assigned to perform a job of the subset of jobs;
generating one or more candidate shifts, wherein each candidate shift of the one or more candidate shifts begins within a predefined timeframe of a start time of a respective shift of the plurality of shifts or ends within a predefined timeframe of an end time of a respective shift of the plurality of shifts, and wherein each candidate shift assigns the particular worker to perform the job performed during the respective shift;
identifying a subset of the plurality of variables of the scheduling problem,
wherein the subset comprises one or more variables representing the one or more candidate shifts;
determining, based on the subset of the plurality of variables, a tentative solution of the scheduling problem;
responsive to determining that the tentative solution fails a predefined quality criterion, modifying the tentative solution; and
generating, based on the modified tentative solution, a schedule to assign at least the plurality of workers to perform at least the plurality of jobs during at least the plurality of time periods.
Further regarding Claim 9, A system, comprising: a memory; and a processing device coupled to the memory, the processing device configured to:
Further regarding Claim 15, A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to:
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 identifying a plurality of variables, identifying a plurality of constraints, identifying a scheduling problem, identifying a subset of the plurality of variables, and determining a tentative solution of the scheduling problem 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 addressing the various scheduling problem and allowing generation of workforce schedules (See Specification, [11]).
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 Claims 2, 4-8, 11-14, and 17-20, the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the Claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examining Claims with Respect to Prior Art
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20, though directed to non-statutory subject matter, are deemed to define over the currently known prior art under 35 USC 102 and 103. Examiner interprets based upon the claim limitations that there is no currently known prior art that discloses the features relating to: “identifying, by a processing device, a plurality of variables associated with scheduling a plurality of workers to perform a plurality of jobs during respective shifts defined by corresponding time periods, wherein each variable of the plurality of variables is associated with a corresponding shift; identifying a plurality of constraints associated with the plurality of variables; identifying a scheduling problem for optimizing an objective function defined on the plurality of variables subject to the plurality of constraints; identifying, in a historic schedule assigning at least a subset of the plurality of workers to perform at least a subset of the plurality of jobs during a plurality of past time periods, a subset of jobs that were most frequently assigned to a particular worker; identifying, in the historic schedule, a plurality of shifts during which the particular worker was assigned to perform a job of the subset of jobs; generating one or more candidate shifts, wherein each candidate shift of the one or more candidate shifts begins within a predefined timeframe of a start time of a respective shift of the plurality of shifts or ends within a predefined timeframe of an end time of a respective shift of the plurality of shifts, and wherein each candidate shift assigns the particular worker to perform the job performed during the respective shift; identifying a subset of the plurality of variables of the scheduling problem, wherein the subset comprises one or more variables representing the one or more candidate shifts; determining, based on the subset of the plurality of variables, a tentative solution of the scheduling problem; responsive to determining that the tentative solution fails a predefined quality criterion, modifying the tentative solution; and generating, based on the modified tentative solution, a schedule to assign at least the plurality of workers to perform at least the plurality of jobs during at least the plurality of time periods.”
The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
The closest prior arts of record are of as follows:
Known Prior Art (patent)
US 7725339 B1
Contact center scheduling using integer programming
US 20200151649 A1
WORKFLOWS WITH RULE-BASED ASSIGNMENTS
US 20200380451 A1
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SCHEDULING SHIFTS AND EMPLOYEE LEAVE MANAGEMENT
US 20230359182 A1
WORK MANAGEMENT APPARATUS
US 8935172 B1
Fulfilling staffing requirements via an interactive voice response system
US 20240330807 A1
System and Method for Allocation of Resources
US 20190303839 A1
SCHEDULE MANAGING METHOD AND SCHEDULE MANAGING APPARATUS
US 20210233002 A1
INTEGRATED SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT APPARATUS AND INTEGRATED SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT METHOD
US 20230229993 A1
SHIFT DESIGN AND ASSIGNMENT SYSTEM WITH EFFICIENT INCREMENTAL SOLUTION
Known Prior Art (NPL)
R. D. Hontinfinde, A. Kamoyedji, M. T. Vitouley and R. Smako Honfo, "A comparative study of two different optimization methods applied to the static job scheduling problem in grid computing," 2023 9th International Conference on Computer and Communications (ICCC), Chengdu, China, 2023, pp. 2565-2571
Known Prior Art (foreign)
WO2021248132A1
Machine learning systems for collaboration prediction and methods for using same
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 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