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 .
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Examiner's communication of 12/30/2025, Applicant, on 03/30/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are currently amended.
Claim 2 is canceled.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 112
The arguments have been fully considered and found to be persuasive.
As a result, the Examiner withdraws the 35 USC § 112 rejection of claim 7 in the present office action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the technical improvement as argued by Applicant.
The Examiner submits that the present claims focus on the abstract idea of using mathematical algorithm (can be performed with a human using pen and paper) for scheduling without clearly providing an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a practical application. Scheduling also can be viewed as certain method of organizing human activities as recited by the Examiner under the 35 USC § 101 rejection (below). Paragraphs 0002-0003 (as argued by Applicant) solve a business problem by efficiently utilizing human resources in a workplace.
The LCB/UCB scheduling method (arguments page 6) is done by a processor (obtaining process, selection process) to solve a mathematical scheduling problem. It is not clear from the present claims in view of the original disclosure that the LCB/UCB scheduling solves a technical problem such as improve the functioning of a computer by more efficient CPU usage for example nor improving an existing technology. The Examiner asserts that the present claims as amended solve a business scheduling problem of efficiently utilizing human resources in a workplace.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 102
The arguments have been fully considered and found to be persuasive.
None of the cited documents by the Examiner, taken individually or in combination, discloses or suggests the features in the independent claims as amended, nor could a person skilled in the art easily conceive of such features even in the light of common technical knowledge at the time of filing. The pending claims 1 and 3-7 are therefore distinguished from the prior arts cited by the Examiner.
In conclusion, the Examiner withdraws the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 102 in the present office action.
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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1 and 3-7 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of task scheduling.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “an obtaining process of obtaining an earned reward and a required round count of a task that completes execution in a round; and a selection process of selecting a combination of tasks each starting execution in a round with reference to the earned reward and the required round count obtained in the obtaining process, in the selection process, dividing a set of rounds into a plurality of blocks and selecting the combination, wherein a combination of the same tasks is executed in each of rounds belonging to the same block, wherein, for each block, in the selection process, (i) calculates an estimated reward of each task by using a lower confidence bound (LCB) of an average required round count of the task and an upper confidence bound (UCB) of an average earned reward of the task, and (ii) selects a combination of tasks that maximizes a sum of estimated rewards of the tasks, from among combinations of tasks executable in parallel in the same round, as a combination of tasks to be executed in the block: and executing, for each block, the selected combination of tasks in parallel in each round belonging to the block based on the required round count of each task”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for task scheduling. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 6-7 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 6-7 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 3-5 recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for task scheduling. As a result, claims 3-5 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A scheduling apparatus comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out:”, “the at least one processor”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the step of “obtaining” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “obtaining” is an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 6-7 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 7 further recites “A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 6-7 do not include additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 3-5 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1 and 6-7. As a result, claims 3-5 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A scheduling apparatus comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out:”, “the at least one processor”. The step of “obtaining” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “obtaining” is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 6-7 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 7 further recites “A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 6-7 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 3-5 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1 and 6-7. As a result, claims 3-5 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments and arguments dated 03/30/2026 necessitated the updating of the 35 USC § 101 and the withdrawal of the 35 USC § 102 rejections of the pending claims presented in the present 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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
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 of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (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 US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights