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 10 June 2026.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 14 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome the 101 rejections previously raised. Those rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the 103 rejections previously raised. Those rejections are respectfully withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10 June 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the 101 applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea and cannot be practically performed in the mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Computational processes that are merely machine implemented are not sufficient to integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application nor does it amount to significantly more. The use of a computer or processor in a generalized fashion to increase the speed or efficiency of performing calculations does not meaningfully limit the otherwise abstract claims. In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly.
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a specific improvement in computer implemented workforce management technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Replacing an error prone manual process with an automated process does not illustrate a technical improvement. The specification describes that the errors exist due to manual data entry, interpretation and inconsistencies. Merely automating those steps such that they are performed by a computer does not demonstrate an improvement to the computer itself or another technology, nor does it demonstrate a technical solution to a technical problem. Unlike Enfish, the claims are not directed to an improvement in how databases operation instead the steps of the instant application are merely applied “by a processor”.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate any recited abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of a process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea. This invention makes analytic reporting faster, it does not improve the computer or technology itself nor does it solve a technical problem, instead it solves a business or human problem, human based errors and inconsistencies.
The particular way to computer HOO “by a processor” with the intended use being for enabling processing of downstream schedule and staffing workflows does not integrate recited additional elements into a practical application nor does it amount to significantly more. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a functional or structural difference in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention. The claimed invention does not improve the technology by providing more precise, automated determinations and accurate downstream staffing and scheduling because any purported improvement is wholly within the identified abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claimed historical ACD is retrieved from a cloud based data warehouse, a forecasting algorithm, inference via threshold algorithm/configurable threshold algorithm, ordered and ordered, integrated pipeline amount to significantly more. These arguments are more specific than the limitations in the claims. The claims do not recite these limitations and the do not recite additional elements that meaningfully limit the implementation of any recited functions for performing, identifying, collecting, applying, comparing or generating. The 101 rejection is respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Regarding the 103 applicants arguments are persuasive. None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination teaches performing an automated HOO analysis to infer skill specific Hoo schedules where volume metrics are collected for a time interval, skill by skill volume metrics are persistently generated and compared against a configured threshold to identify periods of activity and inactivity for each skill.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 9 and 14 recite limitations for performing historical analysis on historical data, identifying trends in skills demand for each of the plurality of skills, performing analysis on forecasted reports for skills allocation to generate future demand patterns, performing/executing HOO analysis for each of the plurality of skills by collecting volume metrics, applying collected volume metrics to persistently generate volume metrics on a skill by skill basis and comparing the persistently generated volume metrics against a configured threshold to identify periods of activity and inactivity, generating a staffing forecast, and generating hours of operation. These limitations, as drafted, illustrate processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. Identifying trends, performing analytics, generating forecasts, hours of operations, collecting metrics, applying metrics to generate metrics on a skill by skill basis, and comparing metrics to a threshold illustrate high level observation and evaluation type functions that could be done the same way mentally or manually with a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component such as a processor being used, that steps are done automatically, are automated or a computer system environment does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements including generating and providing a report for enabling processing of downstream schedule and staffing workflows, a system including a processor and medium with executable instructions, and a processor by which the steps are executed. The generating a report and providing the analysis report are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data outputting and transmission, which is form of insignificant extra solution activity. Collecting metrics, even if explicitly perform “by one or more processors” would also be considered insignificant extra solution activity in that it demonstrates mere data gathering. The processor and system that perform the steps automatically or perform automated functions are also recited at a high level of generality and merely automate/apply those steps. 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.
For the generating and providing steps that were, and potentially the collecting step, considered extra solution activity in step 2A above, these have 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 automation, generation or providing is performed by anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs. court decisions in MPEP 2106.05 indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission/outputting of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-12 and 15-20 include all of the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 14 and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims merely narrow the recited abstract idea by describing additional observation and evaluation steps including applying different data and skills in the HOO analysis, generate a date-wise HOO, generating a day-wise HOO, and generating a schedule comprising a day-wise and/or duration wise HOO. The claims recite additional elements for storing metrics in a database, receiving a request and communicating a schedule, these elements fail to transform the claims into a patent eligible invention but instead describe insignificant extra solution activity including data gathering, storage and transmission. When re-evaluated in step 2B these are determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the storing, receiving or communicating are performed by anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs. court decisions in MPEP 2106.05 indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission/outputting of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Deodhar et al. (US 2017/0116552) System and method to measure, aggregate and analyze exact effort and time productivity.
Siegel et al. (US 12,694,359) System and method to assess workforce potential.
Kemp (US 8,311,863) Utility high performance capability assessment.
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