DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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 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.
Status of the Claims
This communication is in response to communications received on 1/4/26. Claim(s) none is/are amended, claim(s) none is/are cancelled, claim(s) none is/are new, and applicant does not provide any information on where support for the amendments can be found in the instant specification as there are no amendments. Therefore, Claims 1-17 is/are pending and have been addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 1/4/26, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 1-17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 101 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 8-10.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because claims are directed to trading work schedules among workers.
Applicant may be relying on 2106.05(d) “well understood, routine, and conventional” however Examiner is relying on 2106.05(f) “apply it.” Examiner relied on “apply it” because of item (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process of 2106.05(f).
Regarding an improvement to technology, the claims appear to be focused on a business solution as the finding of a match (the solution) is not based on transforming data being further defined. Furthermore, it is unclear what improvement is being done to a computer or other technology or technical field as the improvement is utilizing previously available data
The instant claims are similar to the claims in application 17/367,369 (which the instant claims are a continuation in part of) and as noted in the Patent Board decision dated 10/10/25 for application 17/367,369 a 101 rejection is warranted.
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
Claims Without Prior Art Rejections
Claim(s) 1-17 do not have prior art rejections. The remaining rejections are 101 as noted below.
Closest prior art to the invention include:
Barni (US 2005/0177407 A1) in view of Jeong et al. (US 2021/0150451 A1), Taheri et al. (US 2018/0158548 A1), and Lu et al. (US 11,010,699 B1) for claim(s) 1-17.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as noted below.
The limitation(s) below for representative claim(s) 1 and 17 that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to trading work schedules among workers.
Step 1: The claim(s) as drafted, is/are a process (claim(s) 1-11 recites a series of steps) and system (claim(s) 12-20 recites a series of components).
Step 2A – Prong 1: The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) (emphasis added):
Claim 1: in a computerized-system comprising a processor, and a memory including a database of a plurality of agents with a respective plurality of days off and scheduled-working-shifts stored thereon, said processor is operating a trading-shifts module, said trading-shifts module comprising:
(i) communicating with a computerized-device of a source-agent, to receive a trade request for a scheduled-working-shift, via a trading-shift-interface that is running on the computerized-device and associated with a Workforce Management (WFM) system;
(ii) retrieving from the database of a plurality of agents with a respective plurality of days-off and scheduled-working shifts, one or more adequate target-agents, which have tagged a period including the scheduled-working shift as tradable via a UI that is associated to the WFM system and having a day off, during the scheduled-working-shift;
(iii) calculating a trading-rank to each agent of the one or more adequate target-agents, based on a number of trading actions in a preconfigured period of time in which the adequate target-agent has accepted a trade request, wherein the calculated trading-rank indicates flexibility to trade a scheduled-working-shift,
(iv) sorting the one or more adequate target-agents, in descending order according to the calculated trading-rank of each agent of the one or more adequate target-agents, to yield a sorted list of target-agents having a top-rated target-agent; and
(v) automatically updating the database of the plurality of agents with a respective plurality of days off and scheduled-working-shifts, by assigning the scheduled-working-shift of the source-agent to the top-rated target-agent and the scheduled-working-shift of the top-rated target-agent to the source-agent.
Claim(s) 17: same analysis as claim(s) 1.
Dependent claims 2-16 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 1 and 17 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s): .
The identified limitations of the independent and dependent claims above fall well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts of:
a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with trading work schedules among workers.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include in a computerized-system comprising a processor, and a memory including a database, module, computerized device, interface, Workforce Management (WFM) system, automatically updating (claim(s) 1, 17), computerized device, interface, database (claim(s) 2), computerized device, mobile device, tablet, laptop, desktop (claim(s) 7), database (claim 10), module (claim 12-13, 16), interface (claim(s) 12), database (claim(s) 14), computerized device (claim(s) 16).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 fails to describe:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0044, 0055-0056]) invoked as a tool and/or general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0044, 0055-0056]) invoked as a tool and/or a general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and thus similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as set forth above (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Conclusion
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WEBB whose telephone number is (313)446-6615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-3.
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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624