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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on July 30, 2026. Claims 1-3 and 14-16 have been amended.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 14 are independent.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection in this Office Action.
The Objection to the drawings as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-3 and 14-16 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-20 has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 30, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 12, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, amended independent claim 1 does not cover certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Although the claimed system assists in processing schedule change requests, the claimed advancement is not merely the approval or denial of such requests. Rather, the amended claims recite a specific sequence computer operations that retrieves operational workforce data from multiple databases….
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Processing schedule change requests is a form of fundamental economic practice, commercial interactions, and/or managing interactions between people, which falls in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Although claim 1 recites “a workforce management server having a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium” for performing the steps include: receiving data from a plurality of agent computing devices, storing data in the SCR database, displaying the n SCRs and the n respective suggested actions to a user. However, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions. The courts have held that merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).
In the Remarks on page 13, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that assuming, arguendo, that the independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, the amended independent claim 1 recites elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a claim to integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claimed elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised 2019 Guidance. Here, as discussed above, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a workforce management server having a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium” for performing the steps include: receiving data from a plurality of agent computing devices, storing data in the SCR database, displaying the n SCRs and the n respective suggested actions to a user. However, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, storing, displaying, and transmitting information over a network. Thus, the claimed additional elements do not improve any functioning of a computer or another technology. See Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The only improvements identified in the specification are generic speed and efficiency improvements inherent in applying the use of a computer to any task. . . . This is not an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself.”)
In the Remarks on page 16, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that assuming, arguendo, that the independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, independent claim 1 amounts to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Step 2B is to determine whether any “inventive concept” which can transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The “inventive concept” may arise in one or more of the individual claim limitations or in the ordered combination of the limitations. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. An “inventive concept” that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer. Id. at 2358.
In the present case, beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a workforce management server having a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the server being in electronic communication with a manager computing device and a plurality of agent computing devices, the processor comprising a query module, a net staffing calculator, a prompt generator, a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) model, and a dynamic graphical user interface (GUI), the server being in electronic communication with a schedule change request (SCR) database, a schedule database comprising a schedule, and a forecasting database” for performing the steps. The Specification describes that “The system includes a workforce management server having a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium…, the processor, to perform operations which may include: receiving…, storing…, updating…and displaying to the user”(see ¶ 8). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. The courts have held that merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). Thus, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating and transmitting over a network. Taking the claim elements separately and as an ordered combination, the processor, at best, may perform the generic computer functions including receiving, storing, displaying and transmitting information over a network. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. V. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In the Remarks on page 19, Applicant argues that Fama, Soma, and Amemiya, either alone or in combination, do not teach all of the claimed features of amended independent claim 1. However, Applicant’s arguments are directed to the newly amended claims, and therefore, the newly amended claims will be fully addressed in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, the claims recite the term “staffing value” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear to the Examiner as to what “staffing value” mean with respect to the claimed subject matter, and is no definition in the specification. At most, paragraphs [0066-0077] described about calculating a net staffing and a total staffing level. Applicants are required to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-20 are also rejected for the same reasons as each depends on the rejected claims.
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.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-13 are directed to a system comprising a workflow management server having a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium, which falls in the statutory category of a machine. Claims 14-20 are directed to a method for managing schedule change request, which falls within the statutory category of a process.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method as representative, the claims recites limitations of “receiving a plurality of SCRs, storing the plurality of SCRs in the SCR database, receiving a new SCR, storing the new SCR and deadline in the SCR database, fetching a SCR from the updated SCR database, computing a respective net staffing impact for each SCR, determining a current net staffing value for a time interval, modifying the scheduled-agent data to simulate approval of the SCR, determining a post-approval net staffing value, determining the net staffing impact of the SCR, generating a prompt for the Gen AI model, determining a respective priority, placing the n SCRs in order of their respective priorities, suggest a respective action, updating the dynamic UID to display to a user, generating a text observation”, none of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to methods that allow users for managing schedule change request, and managing relationships or interactions between people, which fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere nominal recitation of generic computer components and the term “automatically” do not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite the additional elements of “a workforce management server having a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium”, and the term “automatically”. The Specification describes that “The system includes a workforce management server having a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium…, the processor, to perform operations which may include: receiving…, storing…, updating…and displaying to the user”(see ¶ 8). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the Specification, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). With respect to the team “Automatically”, the courts have held that “Automating manual and mental processes on generic computers does not make an abstract idea patent eligible.” See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[A]utomation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite the additional elements of “a workforce management server having a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium”, and the term “automatically”. The Specification describes that “The system includes a workforce management server having a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium…, the processor, to perform operations which may include: receiving…, storing…, updating…and displaying to the user”(see ¶ 8). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the Specification, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. Taking the claim elements separately and as an ordered combination, the processor, at best, may perform the generic computer functions including receiving, storing, displaying and transmitting information over a network. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. V. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 14-20 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims 1-13 parallel claims 14-20—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fama et al., (US 2021/0158267, hereinafter: Fama), and in view of Soma et al., (WO 2022045058, hereinafter: Soma), and further in view of Amemiya et al., (US 2022/0058055, hereinafter: Amemiya), and Akred et al., (US 2011/0077989, hereinafter: Akred).
Regarding claim 1, Fama discloses a system adapted to automatically manage schedule change requests, the system comprising:
a workforce management server having a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the server being in electronic communication with a manager computing device and a plurality of agent computing devices, the processor comprising a query module, a net staffing calculator, a prompt generator, a generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) model, and a dynamic graphical user interface (GUI), the server being in electronic communication with a schedule change request (SCR) database, a schedule database comprising a schedule, and a forecasting database, the computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions stored in association therewith that are accessible to, and executable by, the processor (see ¶ 79-84, ¶ 89 and claim 12), to perform operations which comprise:
with the net staffing calculator, using the schedule database and the forecasting database, computing a respective net staffing impact for each SCR of the n SCRs (see ¶ 27, ¶ 49-51, ¶ 84) by:
modifying the scheduled-agent data to simulate approval of the SCR (see ¶ 47-49, ¶ 55, ¶ 83);
determining a post-approval net staffing value for the time interval based on the required-agent data and the modified scheduled-agent data (see ¶ 62-64, claim 10); and
determining the net staffing impact of the SCR based on the current net staffing value and the post-approval net staffing value (see ¶ 49-51, ¶ 61, claim 11);
with the prompt generator, based on the n SCRs, the n respective deadlines corresponding to the n SCRs, and the n net staffing impacts, corresponding to the n SCRs, generating a prompt for the GenAI model (see ¶ 40, ¶ 51, ¶ 55, claims 6-8);
with the Gen AI model (see ¶ 83), using the prompt:
for each SCR of the n SCRs, suggest a respective action to approve or decline the SCR (see ¶ 62, ¶ 65, claim 11); and
updating the dynamic GUI on the manager computing device to display to a user, in the order of their respective priorities, the n SCRs and the n respective suggested actions corresponding to the n SCR (see ¶ 40-41, ¶ 64, ¶ 88).
Fama discloses a workflow management system for receiving requests from one or more agents to make changes to their work schedule, the requested change may include a request for additional time off, a shift change, or a request for an additional shift. The schedule engine determines if the requested change will negatively impact the service level of a queue for one or more intervals associated with the request (see ¶ 49).
Fama does not explicitly the following limitations; however, Soma in an analogous art for schedule management discloses
with the workforce management server, receiving, from the plurality of agent computing devices, a plurality of SCRs, each SCR having a respective agent name, a respective requested date, and a respective deadline (see pg. 9, pg. 2; pg. 10, ¶ 3; pg. 15, ¶ 2; pg. 18, ¶ 2); and
storing the plurality of SCRs in the SCR database (see pg. 4, ¶ 6-8; pg. 7, ¶ 2; pg. 16, ¶ 4);
continuously, in real time:
with the workforce management server, receiving, from an agent computing device of the plurality of agent computing devices, a new SCR, the new SCR having a respective deadline (see pg. 9, pg. 2; pg. 10, ¶ 3; pg. 15, ¶ 2; pg. 18, ¶ 2);
updating the SCR database by storing the new SCR and the respective deadline in the SCR database (see pg. 4, ¶ 6-8; pg. 7, ¶ 2; pg. 16, ¶ 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Fama to include teaching Soma of in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, enabling better informed decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Fama discloses generating a forecast for a plurality of queues associated with an entity for a plurality of intervals by a computing device (see ¶ 4); and the schedule engine may generate schedule for the one or more agents and assign agents to queues for each interval that the schedule covers (see ¶ 38).
Fama and Soma do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Amemiya in an analogous art for task control management discloses
with the query module, fetching n SCRs from the updated SCR database whose deadlines are nearest (see ¶ 36, ¶ 40-41);
for each SCR of the n SCRs, determining a respective priority of the SCR (see ¶ 61, ¶ 77);
placing the n SCRs in order of their respective priorities (see ¶ 73, ¶ 117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Fama and in view of Soma to include teaching of Amemiya in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, and in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Fama, Soma and Amemiya do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Akred in an analogous art for valuating employees discloses
determining a current net staffing value for a time interval associated with the SCR based on required-agent data retrieved from the forecasting database and scheduled-agent data retrieved from the schedule database (see Abstract; ¶ 4, ¶ 22-23, ¶ 46, claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Soma and in view of Fama and in view of Soma and Amemiya to include teaching of Akred in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of detail analysis to increase the value of an employee of an organization. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Fama discloses the system of claim 1, wherein fetching the n SCRs from the updated SCR database is performed automatically in response to receipt of each new SCR, and wherein the dynamic GUI is updated each time the new SCR is received (see ¶ 41: the interface prompts for updates and changes to the schedule engine generating the schedule; ¶ 51, ¶ 64).
Regarding claim 3, Fama discloses the system of claim 1, wherein fetching the n SCRs from the updated SCR database is performed in response to a user input, and wherein the dynamic GUI is updated each time the user input is received (see ¶ 41, 64).
Regarding claim 4, Fama discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the operations further comprise automatically updating the dynamic GUI of the manager computing device, automatically querying the user to provide the user input (see ¶ 41, ¶ 57, ¶ 64).
Regarding claim 6, Fama discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the links provide respective user controls for each SCR of the n SCRs, enabling the user to manually approve or decline the SCR (see ¶ 55, ¶ 62).
Regarding claim 7, Fama and Soma do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Amemiya discloses the system of claim 1, wherein n is 5 (see Fig. 2, #21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Soma and in view of Fama to include teaching of Amemiya in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, and in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, claim 7 describes the actual content of variable n is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 8, Fama discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the prompt includes, for at least one SCR of the n SCRs, at least one of a request type, an agent’s schedule, an agent comment or a historical approval pattern known to the GenAI model, and wherein placing the n SCRs in the order of their respective priorities takes into account the request type, the agent’s schedule, the agent comment, or the historical approval pattern for the at least one SCR of the n SCRs (see ¶ 18-19, ¶ 40-41, ¶ 49-50, ¶ 55, ¶ 67).
Regarding claim 9, Fama discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
if the respective suggested action for an SCR is to approve the SCR, automatically approving the SCR (see ¶ 62, ¶ 64, claim 11); or
if the respective suggested action for an SCR is to decline the SCR, automatically declining the SCR (see ¶ 62, ¶ 64) .
Regarding claim 11, Fama discloses the system of claim 1, wherein each SCR that is neither approved nor declined is pending, and wherein the operations further comprise, continuously in real time, updating the dynamic GUI on an agent computing device of the plurality of agent computing devices to show whether an SCR associated with the agent computing device is approved, declined, or pending (see ¶ 62-64, ¶ 87).
Regarding claim 12, Fama discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
with the GenAI model (see ¶ 83), using the prompt, for each SCR of the n SCRs, generating a text observation (see ¶ 39, ¶ 47, ¶ 62-63, ¶ 71).
Fama and Soma do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Amemiya discloses
updating the dynamic GUI on the manager computing device to display to the user, in the order of their respective priorities, the n text observations (Fig. 2, # 21; ¶ 61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Soma and in view of Fama to include teaching of Amemiya in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, and in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 13, Fama and Soma do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Amemiya discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
if an SCR of the n SCRs has a respective deadline of today, updating the dynamic GUI on the manager computing device to notify the manager of the respective deadline (see ¶ 41-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Soma and in view of Fama to include teaching of Amemiya in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, and in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Fama discloses a method for automatically managing schedule change requests, which method comprises:
with a workforce management server having a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the server being in electronic communication with a manager computing device and a plurality of agent computing devices, the processor comprising a query module, a net staffing calculator, a prompt generator, a generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) model, and a dynamic graphical user interface (GUI), the server being in electronic communication with a schedule change request (SCR) database, a schedule database comprising a schedule, and a forecasting database (see ¶ 79-84, ¶ 89 and claim 12):
with the net staffing calculator, using the schedule database and the forecasting database, computing a respective net staffing impact for each SCR of the n SCRs (see ¶ 27, ¶ 49-51, ¶ 84) by;
modifying the scheduled-agent data to simulate approval of the SCR (see ¶ 47-49, ¶ 55, ¶ 83);
determining a post-approval net staffing value for the time interval based on the required-agent data and the modified scheduled-agent data (see ¶ 62-64, claim 10); and
determining the net staffing impact of the SCR based on the current net staffing value and the post-approval net staffing value (see ¶ 49-51, ¶ 61, claim 11);
with the prompt generator, based on the n SCRs, the n respective deadlines corresponding to the n SCRs, and the n net staffing impacts corresponding to the n SCRs, generating a prompt for the GenAI model (see ¶ 40, ¶ 51, ¶ 55, claims 6-8);
with the GenAI model (see ¶ 83), using the prompt:
for each SCR of the n SCRs, suggest a respective action to approve or decline the SCR (see ¶ 62, ¶ 65, claim 11); and
updating the dynamic GUI on the manager computing device to display to a user, in the order of their respective priorities, the n SCRs and the n respective suggested actions corresponding to the n SCR (see ¶ 40-41, ¶ 64, ¶ 88).
Fama discloses a workflow management system for receiving requests from one or more agents to make changes to their work schedule, the requested change may include a request for additional time off, a shift change, or a request for an additional shift. The schedule engine determines if the requested change will negatively impact the service level of a queue for one or more intervals associated with the request (see ¶ 49).
Fama does not explicitly the following limitations; however, Soma in an analogous art for schedule management discloses
receiving, from the plurality of agent computing devices, a plurality of SCRs, each SCR having a respective agent name, respective requested date, and respective deadline (see pg. 9, pg. 2; pg. 10, ¶ 3; pg. 15, ¶ 2; pg. 18, ¶ 2);
storing the plurality of SCRs in the SCR database (see pg. 4, ¶ 6-8; pg. 7, ¶ 2; pg. 16, ¶ 4); and
continuously, in real time:
with the workforce management server, receiving, from an agent computing device of the plurality of agent computing devices, a new SCR, the new SCR having a respective deadline (see pg. 9, pg. 2; pg. 10, ¶ 3; pg. 15, ¶ 2; pg. 18, ¶ 2);
storing the new SCR and its respective deadline in the SCR database (see pg. 4, ¶ 6-8; pg. 7, ¶ 2; pg. 16, ¶ 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Fama to include teaching Soma of in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, enabling better informed decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Fama discloses generating a forecast for a plurality of queues associated with an entity for a plurality of intervals by a computing device (see ¶ 4); and the schedule engine may generate schedule for the one or more agents and assign agents to queues for each interval that the schedule covers (see ¶ 38).
Fama and Soma do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Amemiya in an analogous art for task control management discloses
with the query module, fetching n SCRs from the SCR database whose deadlines are nearest (see ¶ 36, ¶ 40-41);
for each SCR of the n SCRs, determining a respective priority (see ¶ 61, ¶ 77);
placing the n SCRs in order of their respective priorities (see ¶ 73, ¶ 117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Fama and in view of Soma to include teaching of Amemiya in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, and in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Fama, Soma and Amemiya do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Akred in an analogous art for valuating employees discloses
determining a current net staffing value for a time interval associated with the SCR based on required-agent data retrieved from the forecasting database and scheduled-agent data retrieved from the schedule database (see Abstract; ¶ 4, ¶ 22-23, ¶ 46, claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Soma and in view of Fama and in view of Soma and Amemiya to include teaching of Akred in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an additional layer of detail analysis to increase the value of an employee of an organization. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, claim 14 is directed to a method, however, claim 14 recites the method comprises structural limitations (e.g., a/the workforce management service having a processor, the query module, the net staffing calculator, the prompt generator, the GenAI model). Therefore, this limitation does not have any patentable weight. To be entitled to such weight in method claims, the recited structural limitation therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure (Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31 (BdPatApp&Int 1961)).
Regarding claim 15, Fama discloses the method of claim 14, wherein fetching the n SCRs from the updated SCR database is performed automatically in response to receipt of each new SCR, and wherein the dynamic GUI is updated each time the new SCR is received (see ¶ 41: the interface prompts for updates and changes to the schedule engine generating the schedule; ¶ 51, ¶ 64).
Regarding claim 16, Fama discloses the method of claim 14, wherein fetching the n SCRs from the updated SCR database is performed in response to a user input, and wherein the dynamic GUI is updated each time the user input is received (see ¶ 41, 64).
Regarding claim 17, Fama discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising:
if the respective suggested action for an SCR is to approve the SCR, automatically approving the SCR (see ¶ 62, ¶ 64, claim 11); or
if the respective suggested action for an SCR is to decline the SCR, automatically declining the SCR (see ¶ 62, ¶ 64).
Regarding claim 18, Fama discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the dynamic GUI comprises respective user controls for each SCR of the n SCRs, enabling the user to manually approve or decline the SCR (see ¶ 55, ¶ 62).
Regarding claim 19, Fama discloses the method of claim 14, wherein each SCR that is neither approved nor declined is pending, and wherein the method further comprises, continuously in real time, updating the dynamic GUI on an agent computing device of the plurality of agent computing devices to show whether an SCR associated with the agent computing device is approved, declined, or pending (see ¶ 62-64, ¶ 87).
Regarding claim 20, Fama discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising:
with the GenAI model (see ¶ 83), using the prompt, for each SCR of the n SCRs, generating a text observation (see ¶ 39, ¶ 47, ¶ 62-63, ¶ 71).
Fama and Soma do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Amemiya discloses
updating the dynamic GUI on the manager computing device to display to the user, in the order of their respective priorities, the n text observations (Fig. 2, # 21; ¶ 61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Soma and in view of Fama to include teaching of Amemiya in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of enhancing computational efficiency, and in turn operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fama and in view of Soma, Amemiya and Akred as applied to claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11-20 above, and further in view of Kwon et al., (KR 20230075322, hereinafter: Kwon).
Regarding claim 5, Fama discloses the administrator is prompted by the forecast engine. The prompt may be in the form of an electronic communication such as an email, or one or more links through which the administrator may either approve or reject the generated forecast (see ¶ 55).
Fama, Soma, Amemiya and Akred do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Kwon in an analogous art for information processing discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise, with a postprocessor, adding a respective link to at least one SCR of the n SCRs, and refactoring at least one SCR of the n SCRs to remove unimportant or redundant information (see pg. 3, ¶ 5; pg. 4, ¶ 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Soma and in view of Fama and in view of Soma, Amemiya and Akred to include teaching of Kwon in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of additional data selection, resulting in more focused solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10, Fama, Soma, Amemiya and Akred do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Kwon discloses the system of claim 1, wherein fetching the n SCRs from the SCR database involves, with the GenAI model, converting a natural language query into an SQL query (see pg. 2, ¶ 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Fama and in view of Soma, Amemiya and Akred to include teaching of Kwon in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of additional data selection, resulting in more focused solution, enabling better decision making. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dvorscak et al., (US 2020/0394594) discloses a system for optimizing distribution of incentive in a multi-week work schedule and forecasting a net staffing value for each time interval.
Foss et al., (US 8744889 B1) discloses a method for managing a shift schedule for employees and ranking the shift schedule based on the payroll budget to obtain a ranked list of shift schedules.
Cox et al., (US 8788308 B1) discloses a method for establishing, maintaining, distributing, and modifying employee schedules or shift change request.
Schwartz et al., (US 9679265 B1) discloses a method for real time automated supporting intraday dynamic staffing scheduling, forecasting and performance management.
Zia et al., “Optimizing Change Request Scheduling in IT Service Management”, Department of Management Science and Engineering Stanford University. 2008 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing.
Setzer et al., “Change scheduling based on business impact analysis of change-related risk”, IEEE Transactions on Network Service Management, Vol. 7, No. 1. March 2010.
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 PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
