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 Application
This office action is in response to the most recent filings filed by applicants on 04/24/26.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 are amended
No claims are cancelled
No claims are added
Claims 1-20 are pending
Preliminary Amendment
Applicants have amended the previously submitted updated drawings for Figs. 6, 9A-B, and 10. The amendments made to the drawings appear to only be making the blurry parts of the drawings clearer. As such, the amendments made to previously submitted drawings dated (preliminary amendment dated 06/25/26) are being acknowledged and entered.
Claim Interpretations
In the amended independent claims 04/24/26, the claim limitations discussed are broad and the specification does not provide enough detailed support to show to one of ordinary skill in the art what certain terms in the claim limitations mean.
For instance, the claim limitation “enabling write access of a schedule management service pursuant to the rotation table in response to the detecting of the at least one modification to the rotation, wherein;
the write access of the schedule management service pursuant to the rotation table is disabled unless a change to the rotation is detected; and
enabling the write access permits the schedule management service to provision I/O requests to the rotation table;”
Here, in the above claim limitations in light of the specification [0066], [0068], are really broad and as such can reasonably interpreted as being performed by human being. For instance, the claim limitation “the write access of the schedule management service pursuant to the rotation table is disabled unless a change to the rotation is detected” is broad and can reasonably be interpreted as a human being disabling and enabling the change.
In light of these notes, the amended claims, do not overcome previously presented rejections under 101 and 103. As is discussed below. This note is intended as a conversation starter to help applicants understand the examiner’s perspective.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claims 1, 12 and 20 recite: “enabling the write access permits the schedule management service to provision I/O requests to the rotation table”.
Here, in the claims above, contains the abbreviated term I/O requests, which stands for input/output (I/O) requests (see specification [0040]) is not clearly defined in the specification per MPEP. Please see MPEP 2111.01 I. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (discussed below); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable, absent any indication that their use in a particular context changes their meaning, are construed to mean exactly what they say. Thus, "heating the resulting batter-coated dough to a temperature in the range of about 400oF to 850oF" required heating the dough, rather than the air inside an oven, to the specified temperature.).
The presumption that a term is given its ordinary and customary meaning may be rebutted by the applicant by clearly setting forth a different definition of the term in the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the USPTO looks to the ordinary use of the claim terms taking into account definitions or other "enlightenment" contained in the written description); But c.f. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification."). When the specification sets a clear path to the claim language, the scope of the claims is more easily determined and the public notice function of the claims is best served.
Abbreviations used in claims 1, 12 and 20 should be avoided because there is no plain meaning associated with the term, as such the term creates ambiguity. The description of the term is not a clear definition per MPEP. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). (See MPEP 2111.01 II). Appropriate correction is required.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., 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 1-11 is/are directed to a method which is a statutory category.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 12-19 is/are directed to a device/apparatus which is a statutory category.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 20 is/are directed to a computer program product which is a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong 1: Identify the Abstract Idea(s)
The Alice framework, steps 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo Test), here, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. Further, particular groupings of abstract ideas are consistent with judicial precedent and are based on an extraction and synthesis of the key concepts identified by the courts as being abstract.
Independent claims 1, 12 and 20, with respect to the Step 2A, Prong One, when “taken as a whole” the claims as drafted, and given their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the Abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (business relations; relationships or interactions between people). For instance, independent Method Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, as evidenced by claim limitations “obtaining a plurality of versions of a rotation for performing a task in accordance with a task schedule, wherein: the plurality of versions comprises at least one historical version of the rotation and a current version of the rotation; in response to detecting at least one modification to the rotation, updating the current version of the rotation to generate an updated version of the rotation; enabling write access pursuant to the rotation table in response to the detecting of the at least one modification to the rotation, wherein; the write access of the schedule management service pursuant to the rotation table is disabled unless a change to the rotation is detected; and enabling the write access permits the schedule management service to provision I/O requests to the rotation table; enabling in response to the detecting of the at least one modification to the rotation, wherein; writing, the updated version of the rotation to the rotation table, the updated version of the rotation being written as an additional entry to the plurality of versions of the rotation; generating a timeline for the task schedule based at least in part on the at least one historical version of the rotation and updated version of the rotation; and causing rendering comprising the timeline.”
These claim limitations belong to the grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” because the claims are related to techniques for efficiently managing task changes (see specification [0001]). Managing task changes efficiently for one or more human entities involves organizing human activity based on the description of “certain methods of organizing human activity” provided by the courts. The court have used the phrase “Certain methods of organizing human activity” as —fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Independent Claims 12 and 20 is/are recite substantially similar limitations to independent claim 1 and is/are rejected under 2A for similar reasons to claim 1 above.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
With respect to the Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements: “A computer-implemented method, comprising: from a rotation table, write access of a schedule management service pursuant to the rotation table, the write access of the schedule management service pursuant to the rotation table is disabled unless a change to the rotation is detected; and enabling the write access permits the schedule management service to provision I/O requests to the rotation table; using the schedule management service, of a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display of at least one computing device, the GUI, of a schedule management service” at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea with no significantly more elements.
Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, claims 1, 12 and 20 do not provide any specifics regarding the integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Similarly dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 are also directed to an abstract idea under 2A, first and second prong. In the present application, all of the dependent claims have been evaluated and it was found that they all inherit the deficiencies set forth with respect to the independent claims. For instance, dependent claims 2 recite “further comprising: generating a first portion of the timeline based at least in part on the at least one historical version of the rotation; and generating a second portion of the timeline based at least in part on the updated version of the rotation” and dependent claims 8 recite “wherein: the rotation comprises a listing of at least one user entity assigned to perform the task in accordance with the task schedule; and the at least one modification to the rotation comprises at least one of i) a removal of a user entity from the listing, or ii) an addition of a user entity to the listing”. Here, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims which are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claim above.
Dependent claims 5 recites “wherein: the rotation comprises a listing of a plurality of user entities assigned to perform the task in accordance with the task schedule; and the method further comprises: causing rendering of the GUI on a display of respective computing devices of at least a subset of the plurality of user entities”. In this claim, “GUI” and “computing devices” is an additional element. Dependent claims 6 recites “further comprising: receiving the at least one modification to the rotation from at least one of the respective computing devices via an application programming interface (API)”. In this claim, “application programming interface (API)” and “computing devices” is an additional element. The additional elements in the above claims are still being recited such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). As a result, Examiner asserts that dependent claims, such as dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 are also directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B: Determine Whether Any Element, Or Combination, Amount to “Significantly More” Than the Abstract Idea Itself
With respect to Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. First, the invention lacks improvements to another technology or technical field [see Alice at 2351; 2019 IEG at 55], and lacks meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment [Alice at 2360, 2019 IEG at 55], and fails to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing [2019 IEG, 55]. For the reasons articulated above, the claims recite an abstract idea that is limited to a particular field of endeavor (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and recites insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). By the factors and rationale provided above with respect to these MPEP sections, the additional elements of the claims that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application also fail to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of “A computer-implemented method, comprising: from a rotation table, write access of a schedule management service pursuant to the rotation table, the write access of the schedule management service pursuant to the rotation table is disabled unless a change to the rotation is detected; and enabling the write access permits the schedule management service to provision I/O requests to the rotation table; using the schedule management service, of a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display of at least one computing device, the GUI, of a schedule management service” are insufficient to amount to significantly more. Applicants originally submitted specification describes the computer components above at least in page/ paragraph [0057], [0134]. In light of the specification, it should be noted that the components discussed above did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers"). In light of the specification, it should be noted that the claim limitations discussed above are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). (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). Mere instructions to apply an exception using computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.). The additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as performing repetitive calculations, Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); and 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); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices. All of these additional elements are significantly more because these, again, are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The computing elements with a computing device is recited at high level of generality (e.g. a generic device performing a generic computer function of processing data). Thus, this step is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a generic computer. In addition, using a processor to process data has been well- understood routing, conventional activity in the industry for many years. Generic computer features, such as system or storage, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These limitations merely describe implementation for the invention using elements of a general-purpose system, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1791 (Federal Circuit 2015).
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 claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Independent Claims 12 and 20 is/are recite substantially similar limitations to independent claim 1 and is/are rejected under 2B for similar reasons to claim 1 above.
Further, it should be noted that additional elements of the claimed invention such as claim limitations when considered individually or as an ordered combination along with the other limitations discussed above in method claim 1 also do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers"). In light of the specification, it should be noted that the claim limitations discussed above are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.
Similarly, dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 also do not include limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea under the second prong or 2B of the Alice framework. In the present application, all of the dependent claims have been evaluated and it was found that they all inherit the deficiencies set forth with respect to the independent claims. Further, it should be noted that the dependent claims do not include limitations that overcome the stated assertions. Here, the dependent claims recite features/limitations that include computer components identified above in part 2B of analysis of independent claims 1, 12 and 20. As a result, Examiner asserts that dependent claims, such as dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 are also directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Further, Examiner notes that the addition limitations, when considered as an ordered combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements individually.
For more information on 101 rejections, see MPEP 2106, January 2019 Guidance at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01 -07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 9123009 B1) Etter et al., further in view of (US 20100269049 A1) Fearon.
As per claims 1, 12 and 20:
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Reference Fearon shows:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
obtaining from a rotation table a plurality of versions of a rotation for performing a task in accordance with a task schedule, wherein:
It should be noted that the terms “a plurality of versions” is described in applicants’ specification in: [0036] To overcome these challenges, and others, the present methods, apparatuses, and computer program products provide an improved architecture for storing on-call rotations and generating timelines of task schedules. In various embodiments, the architecture and techniques described herein implement a unified structure for generating historical and future timeline portions based on a plurality of rotation versions. For example, the methods, apparatuses, and computer program products may to generate a historical portion of a timeline based at least in part on historical versions of a rotation and a future portion of a timeline based at least in part on a current version of the rotation.
In light of the specification, the description of “a plurality of versions” is very broad and both references Etter and Fearon read on this as follows:
Reference Etter shows “A computer-implemented method, comprising: obtaining from a rotation table …... of a rotation for performing a task in accordance with a task schedule, wherein:” in (Abstract: Systems and methods are provided for facilitating equitable assignment of rotating shifts to agents in a contact center. In one embodiment, points are allocated to agents indicating their frequency of receiving undesirable shift assignments. Based on the previously allocated points, future undesirable shifts are assigned to agents. The point allocation scheme accommodates various exceptions scheduling periodic rotating shifts, such as skipping assignment of an agent from an upcoming undesirable shift, agents leaving, swapping a shift, and agents being added. In another embodiments, agents are assigned to rotating shifts using constructs of a cycle and a rotation template, which facilitates assigning agents to a work schedule with a calendar in a repetitious manner, and where certain shifts are non-rotational in nature and other shifts are rotational in nature. Col. 7, lines 62-67 – col. 8, lines 1-11: The stripe pattern may useful to visually verify that the rotating assignment of the weekend schedule is equitable. Hence, the administrator may be presented with a schedule where the rotating shifts are highlighted in some manner. However, for a large number of agents, or agents which are not in a certain order, the pattern may not be readily evident as being equitable. As expected, for any given agent working a weekend, the following four weeks represent weeks when that agent is not scheduled to work a weekend. Thus, a regular stripe pattern means that no agent is working weekends back-to-back while other agents are passed-over for weekend shifts. The shift schedule table 200 could be extended out for further weeks, but it is evident that the stripe pattern will repeat for each cycle. Thus, it is possible to accurately predict the agents that should be scheduled in upcoming weeks. In the examples shown herein, space limitations generally limit the figures from illustrating more than one or two cycles.)
It should be noted that the claim limitation “a rotation table” is described in the specification as [0065]-[0066]: In various embodiments, the rotation table 117 is configured to store rotation versions 118. For example, the rotation table 117 may store a latest rotation version 118 (also referred to herein as a “current version” of a rotation) and one or more historical rotation versions 118. In various embodiments, the schedule management service 107 is configured to write new or updated rotation versions 118 as an additional entry to the rotation table 117 such that historical rotation versions 118 are preserved. In light of the specification, (col. 22, lines 62-67, col. 23, lines 1-5, this requires that the system provide the appropriate mechanisms allowing the administrator to establish the appropriate point values and starting values. The system may generate and present a rotation pattern similar as depicted in previous figures to allow the administrator to review the assignment patterns. This could be accomplished using a wizard program that gathers from the user the relevant inputs and in response guides the user though the various options. It is possible that preliminary views of the schedules, similar to as shown in FIGS. 9A-9E are shown to the administrator before finalizing the agent schedules.
In light of this description, Reference Etter shows a wizard program very similar to what is used in the current application to perform the same function. Please see Etter, col. 22, lines 62-67: This requires that the system provide the appropriate mechanisms allowing the administrator to establish the appropriate point values and starting values. The system may generate and present a rotation pattern similar as depicted in previous figures to allow the administrator to review the assignment patterns. This could be accomplished using a wizard program that gathers from the user the relevant inputs and in response guides the user though the various options. It is possible that preliminary views of the schedules, similar to as shown in FIGS. 9A-9E are shown to the administrator before finalizing the agent schedules.
Even though Reference Etter shows “updating” at least in Col. 11, lines 1-15: In many contact centers, agents may negotiate among themselves to arrange a "private" swap of shifts. If so, this ad-hoc swap is presumed be acceptable to the parties and most likely acceptable with the administrator. This type of ad-hoc swap can be reflected in the schedule by manually updating the schedule. However, in instances where the Agent is not able to negotiate a swap and merely informs the administrator of their unavailability, then the administrator must somehow update the schedule and the above approach allows the updating to be done in an equitable manner. If the swap is mutually agreeable, then it may not be necessary to alter the allocated points. Col. 24, lines 51-62: FIG. 14B illustrates another embodiment wherein the comparison of the agent login information is compared with the generated agent schedule in the call handler. In this message flow 1450, the WFM 155 generates the agent schedule as previously described in operation 1452. Next, the WFM 155 transfers the schedule information to the call handler 130 in message 1456. This may be done on a periodic basis. For example, every week a new agent schedule may be generated and downloaded to the call handler. Or, daily updates or subsets of a schedule may be sent to the call handler. Reference Etter does not explicitly show “a plurality of versions” as is recited in the claim.
Reference Fearon shows “a plurality of versions” at least in many different sections of its disclosure. For instance, paragraphs [0689]-[0713]: shows a pre-condition, a normal flow of the task schedule and then an alternate flow of the task schedule. Here the normal and alternate flow of the task schedule triggered by certain conditions reads on “a plurality of versions” in the claim. Similarly, Fearon in [0432] Evaluation and Determination of Future Version, [0497] The creation of new MOS business logic requires modifications to the existing Microsoft Outlook Presentation Layer. MOS's forms will be implemented using Outlook Forms. Outlook Forms may be created in a number of implementations: [0498] Add a new page to an existing form [0499] Add a new form region to an existing form [0500] Append to an existing form [0501] Replace the default page of a form [0502] Replace the entire existing form.
Reference Etter and Reference Fearon are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of scheduling and task management. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Fearon, particularly the ability to have plurality of versions available for view by the user (Fearon: [0689]-[0713]), in the disclosure of Reference Etter, particularly in the ability to update when new information is received (Etter: Col. 11, lines 1-15), in order to provide for a system that brings the power of common business automation tools out of the enterprise world and into the home, just as cell phones evolved from exclusive business tools to everyday consumer essentials as taught by Reference Fearon (see at least in [0182]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Fearon for seeing a plurality of versions allows the process of scheduling and task management can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar scheduling and task management field of endeavor, and in the combination 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Etter in view of Reference Fearon, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A);
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Reference Fearon shows:
the plurality of versions comprises at least one historical version of the rotation and a current version of the rotation;
In light of the specification [0065]-[0066], Reference Etter shows in col. 5, lines 42-54: An initial step may involve developing a forecast of the call volume expected to be serviced for a defined period of time. This forecast may be based on application of historical call data or can use other techniques for generating the anticipated call volume to be handled. Next, a roster template may be produced, which indicates an optimum number of agents required at different times and the associated skill sets that are required to work during the defined period of time. The roster template, at this point, does not associate any particular available agent from a roster of agents with these times, but provides a skeletal set of times that need to be filled. Col. 15, lines 32-45: Adding an agent into a schedule can also be performed by simply including the new agent in the group of agents and assigning the added agent as having the lowest (or highest) score. This requires providing the new agent with an initial score into the shift schedule table. The score assigned to the agent defines how quickly that agent will be integrated into the schedule. For example, based on the assigned score value the agent can be integrated into the schedule in the current stripe cycle, or can be set aside for a number of cycles, and then integrated. The latter operation allows a novice agent to be scheduled, for example, during the week during their initial month before then scheduling the agent to work a weekend shift.
In the claim limitations above, it has already been established in the previous claim limitations that “plurality of versions” is not shown by Reference Etter. Reference Fearon has been used above to show this limitation. Rationales to modify the References, particularly, Reference Etter and Reference Fearon are listed above and reincorporated herein.
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Reference Fearon shows:
in response to detecting at least one modification to the rotation, updating the current version of the rotation to generate an updated version of the rotation;
In light of the specification [0065]-[0066], Reference Etter shows in col. 5, lines 42-54: An initial step may involve developing a forecast of the call volume expected to be serviced for a defined period of time. This forecast may be based on application of historical call data or can use other techniques for generating the anticipated call volume to be handled. Next, a roster template may be produced, which indicates an optimum number of agents required at different times and the associated skill sets that are required to work during the defined period of time. The roster template, at this point, does not associate any particular available agent from a roster of agents with these times, but provides a skeletal set of times that need to be filled. Col. 15, lines 32-45: Adding an agent into a schedule can also be performed by simply including the new agent in the group of agents and assigning the added agent as having the lowest (or highest) score. This requires providing the new agent with an initial score into the shift schedule table. The score assigned to the agent defines how quickly that agent will be integrated into the schedule. For example, based on the assigned score value the agent can be integrated into the schedule in the current stripe cycle, or can be set aside for a number of cycles, and then integrated. The latter operation allows a novice agent to be scheduled, for example, during the week during their initial month before then scheduling the agent to work a weekend shift.
Reference Etter also shows “updating” at least in Col. 11, lines 1-15: In many contact centers, agents may negotiate among themselves to arrange a "private" swap of shifts. If so, this ad-hoc swap is presumed be acceptable to the parties and most likely acceptable with the administrator. This type of ad-hoc swap can be reflected in the schedule by manually updating the schedule. However, in instances where the Agent is not able to negotiate a swap and merely informs the administrator of their unavailability, then the administrator must somehow update the schedule and the above approach allows the updating to be done in an equitable manner. If the swap is mutually agreeable, then it may not be necessary to alter the allocated points. Col. 24, lines 51-62: FIG. 14B illustrates another embodiment wherein the comparison of the agent login information is compared with the generated agent schedule in the call handler. In this message flow 1450, the WFM 155 generates the agent schedule as previously described in operation 1452. Next, the WFM 155 transfers the schedule information to the call handler 130 in message 1456. This may be done on a periodic basis. For example, every week a new agent schedule may be generated and downloaded to the call handler. Or, daily updates or subsets of a schedule may be sent to the call handler.
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Reference Fearon shows:
enabling write access of a schedule management service pursuant to the rotation table in response to the detecting of the at least one modification to the rotation, wherein:
In light of the specification [0065]-[0066], Reference Etter shows in col. 5, lines 42-54: An initial step may involve developing a forecast of the call volume expected to be serviced for a defined period of time. This forecast may be based on application of historical call data or can use other techniques for generating the anticipated call volume to be handled. Next, a roster template may be produced, which indicates an optimum number of agents required at different times and the associated skill sets that are required to work during the defined period of time. The roster template, at this point, does not associate any particular available agent from a roster of agents with these times, but provides a skeletal set of times that need to be filled. Col. 15, lines 32-45: Adding an agent into a schedule can also be performed by simply including the new agent in the group of agents and assigning the added agent as having the lowest (or highest) score. This requires providing the new agent with an initial score into the shift schedule table. The score assigned to the agent defines how quickly that agent will be integrated into the schedule. For example, based on the assigned score value the agent can be integrated into the schedule in the current stripe cycle, or can be set aside for a number of cycles, and then integrated. The latter operation allows a novice agent to be scheduled, for example, during the week during their initial month before then scheduling the agent to work a weekend shift.
Reference Etter also shows updating which reads on “in response to the detecting of the at least one modification to the rotation” at least in Col. 11, lines 1-15: In many contact centers, agents may negotiate among themselves to arrange a "private" swap of shifts. If so, this ad-hoc swap is presumed be acceptable to the parties and most likely acceptable with the administrator. This type of ad-hoc swap can be reflected in the schedule by manually updating the schedule. However, in instances where the Agent is not able to negotiate a swap and merely informs the administrator of their unavailability, then the administrator must somehow update the schedule and the above approach allows the updating to be done in an equitable manner. If the swap is mutually agreeable, then it may not be necessary to alter the allocated points. Col. 24, lines 51-62: FIG. 14B illustrates another embodiment wherein the comparison of the agent login information is compared with the generated agent schedule in the call handler. In this message flow 1450, the WFM 155 generates the agent schedule as previously described in operation 1452. Next, the WFM 155 transfers the schedule information to the call handler 130 in message 1456. This may be done on a periodic basis. For example, every week a new agent schedule may be generated and downloaded to the call handler. Or, daily updates or subsets of a schedule may be sent to the call handler.
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
the write access of the schedule management service pursuant to the rotation table is disabled unless a change to the rotation is detected; and
In light of the specification [0065]-[0066], Reference Etter shows the above limitations in col. 5, lines 42-54: An initial step may involve developing a forecast of the call volume expected to be serviced for a defined period of time. This forecast may be based on application of historical call data or can use other techniques for generating the anticipated call volume to be handled. Next, a roster template may be produced, which indicates an optimum number of agents required at different times and the associated skill sets that are required to work during the defined period of time. The roster template, at this point, does not associate any particular available agent from a roster of agents with these times, but provides a skeletal set of times that need to be filled. Col. 15, lines 32-45: Adding an agent into a schedule can also be performed by simply including the new agent in the group of agents and assigning the added agent as having the lowest (or highest) score. This requires providing the new agent with an initial score into the shift schedule table. The score assigned to the agent defines how quickly that agent will be integrated into the schedule. For example, based on the assigned score value the agent can be integrated into the schedule in the current stripe cycle, or can be set aside for a number of cycles, and then integrated. The latter operation allows a novice agent to be scheduled, for example, during the week during their initial month before then scheduling the agent to work a weekend shift.
Reference Etter also shows “updating” at least in Col. 11, lines 1-15: In many contact centers, agents may negotiate among themselves to arrange a "private" swap of shifts. If so, this ad-hoc swap is presumed be acceptable to the parties and most likely acceptable with the administrator. This type of ad-hoc swap can be reflected in the schedule by manually updating the schedule. However, in instances where the Agent is not able to negotiate a swap and merely informs the administrator of their unavailability, then the administrator must somehow update the schedule and the above approach allows the updating to be done in an equitable manner. If the swap is mutually agreeable, then it may not be necessary to alter the allocated points. Col. 24, lines 51-62: FIG. 14B illustrates another embodiment wherein the comparison of the agent login information is compared with the generated agent schedule in the call handler. In this message flow 1450, the WFM 155 generates the agent schedule as previously described in operation 1452. Next, the WFM 155 transfers the schedule information to the call handler 130 in message 1456. This may be done on a periodic basis. For example, every week a new agent schedule may be generated and downloaded to the call handler. Or, daily updates or subsets of a schedule may be sent to the call handler. Etter shows at least in col. 21, lines 17-33: FIG. 13 illustrates one screen display 1300 of a graphical user interface ("GUI") that may be used by a contact center administrator to schedule agents. The screen display 1300 provides a plurality of function tabs 1301-1304 for performing various functions associated with the process. For example, prior to assigning agents which is associated with a function tab 1301, the administrator may have selected a function tab 1302 to create various cycles. These may be generated anew or by editing and modifying an existing cycle. Another function tab 1303 may be used to create roster templates. As with the cycles, these may be named and have various attributes associated with them. Finally, another function tab 1304 may be used to view completed schedules. Additional tabs may be used to define shifts that are used in cycles, modify/add to the rules for checking agent assignments, view draft schedules, etc.
Reference Etter does not explicitly show permission for write access and as such does not explicitly show the above limitations. However, Reference Fearon shows the above limitations at least on page 15, Table 9: TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 Req. No Definition 2.1. The application shall utilize Microsoft Outlook 2007 authentication and authorization mechanisms to authenticate and authorize users. 2.2. The application shall define read/write permissions to calendars based upon calendar type. 2.3. The application shall contain the following roles for calendar: primary, partner, child or senior, special occasions, employee, residence, or other (project).
Reference Etter and Reference Fearon are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of scheduling and task management. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Fearon, particularly the ability to have plurality of versions available for view by the user (Fearon: [0689]-[0713]), in the disclosure of Reference Etter, particularly in the ability to update when new information is received (Etter: Col. 11, lines 1-15), in order to provide for a system that brings the power of common business automation tools out of the enterprise world and into the home, just as cell phones evolved from exclusive business tools to everyday consumer essentials as taught by Reference Fearon (see at least in [0182]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Fearon for seeing a plurality of versions allows the process of scheduling and task management can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar scheduling and task management field of endeavor, and in the combination 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Etter in view of Reference Fearon, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A);
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
enabling the write access permits the schedule management service to provision I/O requests to the rotation table;
In light of the specification [0066], [0068], Reference Etter shows in col. 5, lines 42-54: An initial step may involve developing a forecast of the call volume expected to be serviced for a defined period of time. This forecast may be based on application of historical call data or can use other techniques for generating the anticipated call volume to be handled. Next, a roster template may be produced, which indicates an optimum number of agents required at different times and the associated skill sets that are required to work during the defined period of time. The roster template, at this point, does not associate any particular available agent from a roster of agents with these times, but provides a skeletal set of times that need to be filled. Col. 15, lines 32-45: Adding an agent into a schedule can also be performed by simply including the new agent in the group of agents and assigning the added agent as having the lowest (or highest) score. This requires providing the new agent with an initial score into the shift schedule table. The score assigned to the agent defines how quickly that agent will be integrated into the schedule. For example, based on the assigned score value the agent can be integrated into the schedule in the current stripe cycle, or can be set aside for a number of cycles, and then integrated. The latter operation allows a novice agent to be scheduled, for example, during the week during their initial month before then scheduling the agent to work a weekend shift.
Reference Etter also shows the update happening, which can be reasonably understood as permitting access at least in Col. 11, lines 1-15: In many contact centers, agents may negotiate among themselves to arrange a "private" swap of shifts. If so, this ad-hoc swap is presumed be acceptable to the parties and most likely acceptable with the administrator. This type of ad-hoc swap can be reflected in the schedule by manually updating the schedule. However, in instances where the Agent is not able to negotiate a swap and merely informs the administrator of their unavailability, then the administrator must somehow update the schedule and the above approach allows the updating to be done in an equitable manner. If the swap is mutually agreeable, then it may not be necessary to alter the allocated points. Col. 24, lines 51-62: FIG. 14B illustrates another embodiment wherein the comparison of the agent login information is compared with the generated agent schedule in the call handler. In this message flow 1450, the WFM 155 generates the agent schedule as previously described in operation 1452. Next, the WFM 155 transfers the schedule information to the call handler 130 in message 1456. This may be done on a periodic basis. For example, every week a new agent schedule may be generated and downloaded to the call handler. Or, daily updates or subsets of a schedule may be sent to the call handler. Reference Etter shows at least in col. 21, lines 17-33: FIG. 13 illustrates one screen display 1300 of a graphical user interface ("GUI") that may be used by a contact center administrator to schedule agents. The screen display 1300 provides a plurality of function tabs 1301-1304 for performing various functions associated with the process. For example, prior to assigning agents which is associated with a function tab 1301, the administrator may have selected a function tab 1302 to create various cycles. These may be generated anew or by editing and modifying an existing cycle. Another function tab 1303 may be used to create roster templates. As with the cycles, these may be named and have various attributes associated with them. Finally, another function tab 1304 may be used to view completed schedules. Additional tabs may be used to define shifts that are used in cycles, modify/add to the rules for checking agent assignments, view draft schedules, etc.
However, Reference Etter does not explicitly show permission for write access and as such does not explicitly show the above limitations. However, Reference Fearon shows the above limitations at least on page 15, Table 9: TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 Req. No Definition 2.1. The application shall utilize Microsoft Outlook 2007 authentication and authorization mechanisms to authenticate and authorize users. 2.2. The application shall define read/write permissions to calendars based upon calendar type. 2.3. The application shall contain the following roles for calendar: primary, partner, child or senior, special occasions, employee, residence, or other (project).
Reference Etter and Reference Fearon are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of scheduling and task management. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Fearon, particularly the ability to have plurality of versions available for view by the user (Fearon: [0689]-[0713]), in the disclosure of Reference Etter, particularly in the ability to update when new information is received (Etter: Col. 11, lines 1-15), in order to provide for a system that brings the power of common business automation tools out of the enterprise world and into the home, just as cell phones evolved from exclusive business tools to everyday consumer essentials as taught by Reference Fearon (see at least in [0182]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Fearon for seeing a plurality of versions allows the process of scheduling and task management can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar scheduling and task management field of endeavor, and in the combination 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Etter in view of Reference Fearon, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A);
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
writing, using the schedule management service, the updated version of the rotation to the rotation table, the updated version of the rotation being written as an additional entry to the plurality of versions of the rotation;
In light of the specification [0065]-[0066], Reference Etter shows “writing the updated version of the rotation to the rotation table” in col. 5, lines 42-54: An initial step may involve developing a forecast of the call volume expected to be serviced for a defined period of time. This forecast may be based on application of historical call data or can use other techniques for generating the anticipated call volume to be handled. Next, a roster template may be produced, which indicates an optimum number of agents required at different times and the associated skill sets that are required to work during the defined period of time. The roster template, at this point, does not associate any particular available agent from a roster of agents with these times, but provides a skeletal set of times that need to be filled. Col. 15, lines 32-45: Adding an agent into a schedule can also be performed by simply including the new agent in the group of agents and assigning the added agent as having the lowest (or highest) score. This requires providing the new agent with an initial score into the shift schedule table. The score assigned to the agent defines how quickly that agent will be integrated into the schedule. For example, based on the assigned score value the agent can be integrated into the schedule in the current stripe cycle, or can be set aside for a number of cycles, and then integrated. The latter operation allows a novice agent to be scheduled, for example, during the week during their initial month before then scheduling the agent to work a weekend shift.
Reference Etter also shows “updating” at least in Col. 11, lines 1-15: In many contact centers, agents may negotiate among themselves to arrange a "private" swap of shifts. If so, this ad-hoc swap is presumed be acceptable to the parties and most likely acceptable with the administrator. This type of ad-hoc swap can be reflected in the schedule by manually updating the schedule. However, in instances where the Agent is not able to negotiate a swap and merely informs the administrator of their unavailability, then the administrator must somehow update the schedule and the above approach allows the updating to be done in an equitable manner. If the swap is mutually agreeable, then it may not be necessary to alter the allocated points. Col. 24, lines 51-62: FIG. 14B illustrates another embodiment wherein the comparison of the agent login information is compared with the generated agent schedule in the call handler. In this message flow 1450, the WFM 155 generates the agent schedule as previously described in operation 1452. Next, the WFM 155 transfers the schedule information to the call handler 130 in message 1456. This may be done on a periodic basis. For example, every week a new agent schedule may be generated and downloaded to the call handler. Or, daily updates or subsets of a schedule may be sent to the call handler.
Regarding the claim limitation: “the updated version of the rotation being written as an additional entry to the plurality of versions of the rotation” Etter shows at least in col. 21, lines 17-33: FIG. 13 illustrates one screen display 1300 of a graphical user interface ("GUI") that may be used by a contact center administrator to schedule agents. The screen display 1300 provides a plurality of function tabs 1301-1304 for performing various functions associated with the process. For example, prior to assigning agents which is associated with a function tab 1301, the administrator may have selected a function tab 1302 to create various cycles. These may be generated anew or by editing and modifying an existing cycle. Another function tab 1303 may be used to create roster templates. As with the cycles, these may be named and have various attributes associated with them. Finally, another function tab 1304 may be used to view completed schedules. Additional tabs may be used to define shifts that are used in cycles, modify/add to the rules for checking agent assignments, view draft schedules, etc.
In the claim limitations above, it has already been established in the previous claim limitations that “plurality of versions” is not shown by Reference Etter. Reference Fearon has been used above to show this limitation. Rationales to modify the References, particularly, Reference Etter and Reference Fearon are listed above and reincorporated herein.
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
generating a timeline for the task schedule based at least in part on the at least one historical version of the rotation and updated version of the rotation; and
Reference Etter does not explicitly show a timeline. However, Fearon shows timeline at least in [0424] FIG. 4 further outlines the timeline as a detailed Gantt chart of approximate milestones. [0417] Approximate Functional Specification Timeline. [0418] The timeline for the next steps are delineated below.
Reference Etter and Reference Fearon are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of scheduling and task management. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Fearon, particularly the ability to have plurality of versions available for view by the user (Fearon: [0689]-[0713]), in the disclosure of Reference Etter, particularly in the ability to update when new information is received (Etter: Col. 11, lines 1-15), in order to provide for a system that brings the power of common business automation tools out of the enterprise world and into the home, just as cell phones evolved from exclusive business tools to everyday consumer essentials as taught by Reference Fearon (see at least in [0182]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Fearon for seeing a plurality of versions allows the process of scheduling and task management can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar scheduling and task management field of endeavor, and in the combination 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Etter in view of Reference Fearon, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A);
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
causing rendering of a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display of at least one computing device, the GUI comprising the timeline.
Reference Etter shows the above limitations at least in FIG. 13 illustrates one embodiment of a graphical user interface for assigning agents to a roster template. Col. 18, lines 65-67: It is presumed that suitable graphical user interface tools are provided to the administrator for selecting the month and the week for which scheduling is to be performed. Col. 21, lines 17-22: FIG. 13 illustrates one screen display 1300 of a graphical user interface ("GUI") that may be used by a contact center administrator to schedule agents. The screen display 1300 provides a plurality of function tabs 1301-1304 for performing various functions associated with the process.
As per claims 2 and 13: Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
further comprising: generating a first portion of the timeline based at least in part on the at least one historical version of the rotation; and
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter does not explicitly show a timeline. However, Fearon shows timeline at least in [0424] FIG. 4 further outlines the timeline as a detailed Gantt chart of approximate milestones. [0417] Approximate Functional Specification Timeline. [0418] The timeline for the next steps are delineated below.
Reference Etter and Reference Fearon are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of scheduling and task management. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Fearon, particularly the ability to have plurality of versions available for view by the user (Fearon: [0689]-[0713]), in the disclosure of Reference Etter, particularly in the ability to update when new information is received (Etter: Col. 11, lines 1-15), in order to provide for a system that brings the power of common business automation tools out of the enterprise world and into the home, just as cell phones evolved from exclusive business tools to everyday consumer essentials as taught by Reference Fearon (see at least in [0182]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Fearon for seeing a plurality of versions allows the process of scheduling and task management can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar scheduling and task management field of endeavor, and in the combination 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Etter in view of Reference Fearon, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A);
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
generating a second portion of the timeline based at least in part on the updated version of the rotation.
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter does not explicitly show a timeline. However, Fearon shows timeline at least in [0424] FIG. 4 further outlines the timeline as a detailed Gantt chart of approximate milestones. [0417] Approximate Functional Specification Timeline. [0418] The timeline for the next steps are delineated below.
Reference Etter and Reference Fearon are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of scheduling and task management. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Fearon, particularly the ability to have plurality of versions available for view by the user (Fearon: [0689]-[0713]), in the disclosure of Reference Etter, particularly in the ability to update when new information is received (Etter: Col. 11, lines 1-15), in order to provide for a system that brings the power of common business automation tools out of the enterprise world and into the home, just as cell phones evolved from exclusive business tools to everyday consumer essentials as taught by Reference Fearon (see at least in [0182]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Fearon for seeing a plurality of versions allows the process of scheduling and task management can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar scheduling and task management field of endeavor, and in the combination 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Etter in view of Reference Fearon, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claims 3 and 14: Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
wherein: the timeline comprises a first layer and a second layer;
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter shows the above limitation in col. 17, lines 54-67 and col. 18, lines 1-2: (115) Turning to FIG. 10, the roster template 1010 is associated with three cycles, cycle 1 1012, cycle 2 1013, and cycle 3 1016. The first cycle 1012 may comprise five consecutive days, e.g., weekdays Monday-Friday. There are five corresponding day shifts, e.g., D1-D5 defined by this cycle. Each shift may have a unique or common start time, break time, and end time. The second cycle 1014 defines two shifts on the weekend, which have two corresponding day shifts, e.g., D6 and D7. Finally, the cycle 3 1016 comprises five consecutive evening shifts, E1-E5. This roster template could represent a contact center that has a day and evening shift during the week, and a day shift on the weekend. The roster template 1010 could then be associated for a given week on a calendar. By associating the agents with the cycles, and the roster template to the calendar, (or vice versa), agents can be easily and quickly associated with shifts for specific calendar days;
the first layer is generated based at least in part on respective on-call times for a plurality of user entities associated with the rotation; and
Reference Etter shows in col. 4, lines 50-67: There may be coordination between the call handler 130 and the WFM 155 regarding the actual times when the agent is working, e.g., when the agent is "on-duty" and available to handle calls. In some embodiments, agents may use their workstation to indicate to the call handler when they are available or not, so that the call handler knows when to offer calls to the agent (or not). This information is initially received by the call handler and may be reported to the WFM. In some instances, a periodic log (e.g., hourly, daily, weekly) of such times may be reported to the WFM. Thus, information about when the agent logs onto the call handler, when they log off, and other information about the nature of the work activity the agent is engaged in, is provided from the call handler 130 to the WFM 155. In one embodiment, this may occur using the local network 170 whereas other embodiments may involve other facilities between the call handler and WFM. The WFM may acknowledge receipt of such information, and may further authorize certain of the agent's activities.
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
the second layer is generated based at least in part on the first layer and a respective on-call time associated with a user entity assigned to override or backup at least one of the plurality of user entities associated with the rotation.
Reference Etter shows in col. 11, lines 32-47: Next, that selected agent is assigned to work the weekend shift in operation 404. The starting point of which agent is assigned to work the upcoming shift may be arbitrary in some instances. In this example, the lowest ranking agent ("LRA") is selected. These operations 402 and 404 may be used in a so-called "fresh-start" scenario, when agents are working, e.g., in a new environment, beginning a new campaign, etc. In other instances, the upcoming schedule may take into account the prior work schedules for existing agents. For example, if a new schedule is being developed for a new campaign and the lowest ranking agent selected in operation 402 just completed a weekend shift from a prior campaign, the administrator may override the selection from operation 402 and instead assign a different agent to the next weekend shift (not shown in FIG. 4). Col. 23, lines 40-59: Some rules that may be checked, include: Ensuring that hours worked during a time period does not exceed a limit (e.g., 40 hours/week). Ensure that adequate time occurs between shifts. Ensure that roster templates are associated with at least one agent. Ensure that agent's skills matches required attributes for the assigned cycle. Ensure that scheduled vacation, leave, or time-off requests are considered. Each of these rules may have guidelines indicating how an exception to the rule should be treated. For example, a "hard" rule would indicate that the rule must be followed in each case. A "warning" may be issued with explicit acknowledgement from the administrator that the rule may be overridden. Other indications may simply inform the administrator without requiring any specific authorization actions.)
As per claims 4 and 15: Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
further comprising:
receiving, from a computing device and via an application programming interface (API), a request to report at least one user entity that is on-call for performing the task pursuant to an input task interval, the input task interval indicating one of a plurality of task intervals of the task schedule;
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter does not explicitly show the above limitations. Reference Fearon shows the above limitation at least in [0410] The next four phases for this effort should be: [0411] Use case development as part of the functional specification [0412] Design and planning as part of the functional specification [0413] High-level user interface design with storyboard and mockups [0414] Construction, stabilization and deployment as part of the development. [0418] The timeline for the next steps are delineated below: [0419] Use Case and Requirements Gathering [0420] Technology Proof-of-Concept and System Design [0421] High-Level User Interface Design [0422] Functional Specification Document Composition [0423] Functional Specification Document Delivery.
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
generating a first interval map based at least in part on the first layer of the timeline and a second interval map based at least in part on the second layer of the timeline;
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter does not explicitly show the above limitations. Reference Fearon shows the above limitation at least in [0410] The next four phases for this effort should be: [0411] Use case development as part of the functional specification [0412] Design and planning as part of the functional specification [0413] High-level user interface design with storyboard and mockups [0414] Construction, stabilization and deployment as part of the development. [0418] The timeline for the next steps are delineated below: [0419] Use Case and Requirements Gathering [0420] Technology Proof-of-Concept and System Design [0421] High-Level User Interface Design [0422] Functional Specification Document Composition [0423] Functional Specification Document Delivery.
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
determining, based at least in part on the second interval map, the at least one user entity that is on-call for performing the task pursuant to the input task interval;
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter shows in col. 2, lines 42-52: An initial step may involve developing a forecast of the call volume expected to be serviced for a defined period of time. This forecast may be based on application of historical call data or can use other techniques for generating the anticipated call volume to be handled. Next, a roster template may be produced, which indicates an optimum number of agents required at different times and the associated skill sets that are required to work during the defined period of time. The roster template, at this point, does not associate any particular available agent from a roster of agents with these times, but provides a skeletal set of times that need to be filled. Col. 5, lines 65-67 – col. 6, lines 1-5: In a variation of the above scheme, in many instances, the template and the association of agents to the template may be fairly consistent for the defined period of time. For example, consider a relatively simple schedule involving five agents, each of which works a day shift during the week (e.g., Monday-Friday). Further, one of the five agents is selected to work the weekend shift (Saturday). The contact center is presumed to be closed on Sunday. Col. 6, lines 26-34: This example is reflective of a contact center operation where the staff comprises a predictable number of agents that are repeatedly scheduled over a recurring time period. In the above example, the recurring time period is one week. Further, these agents have a relatively stable portion of their respective schedule--e.g., each agent usually works each day during the week, although the exact start and stop times may vary. Col. 6, lines 54-67: This example is reflective of a contact center operation where the staff comprises a predictable number of agents that are repeatedly scheduled over a recurring time period. In the above example, the recurring time period is one week. Further, these agents have a relatively stable portion of their respective schedule--e.g., each agent usually works each day during the week, although the exact start and stop times may vary.
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
determining, based at least in part on the first interval map and the second interval map, i) at least one user entity that that was on-call for a historical task interval preceding the input task interval, and ii) at least one user entity that is on-call for a future task interval proceeding the input task interval; and
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter shows in col. 2, lines 42-52: An initial step may involve developing a forecast of the call volume expected to be serviced for a defined period of time. This forecast may be based on application of historical call data or can use other techniques for generating the anticipated call volume to be handled. Next, a roster template may be produced, which indicates an optimum number of agents required at different times and the associated skill sets that are required to work during the defined period of time. The roster template, at this point, does not associate any particular available agent from a roster of agents with these times, but provides a skeletal set of times that need to be filled. Col. 5, lines 65-67 – col. 6, lines 1-5: In a variation of the above scheme, in many instances, the template and the association of agents to the template may be fairly consistent for the defined period of time. For example, consider a relatively simple schedule involving five agents, each of which works a day shift during the week (e.g., Monday-Friday). Further, one of the five agents is selected to work the weekend shift (Saturday). The contact center is presumed to be closed on Sunday. Col. 6, lines 26-34: This example is reflective of a contact center operation where the staff comprises a predictable number of agents that are repeatedly scheduled over a recurring time period. In the above example, the recurring time period is one week. Further, these agents have a relatively stable portion of their respective schedule--e.g., each agent usually works each day during the week, although the exact start and stop times may vary. Col. 6, lines 54-67: This example is reflective of a contact center operation where the staff comprises a predictable number of agents that are repeatedly scheduled over a recurring time period. In the above example, the recurring time period is one week. Further, these agents have a relatively stable portion of their respective schedule--e.g., each agent usually works each day during the week, although the exact start and stop times may vary.
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
provisioning, to the computing device and via the API, a report indicating the at least one user entity that is on-call for performing the task pursuant to the input task interval, the at least one user entity that that was on-call for the historical task interval preceding the input task interval, and the at least one user entity that is on-call for the future task interval proceeding the input task interval.
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter shows in col. 2, lines 42-52: An initial step may involve developing a forecast of the call volume expected to be serviced for a defined period of time. This forecast may be based on application of historical call data or can use other techniques for generating the anticipated call volume to be handled. Next, a roster template may be produced, which indicates an optimum number of agents required at different times and the associated skill sets that are required to work during the defined period of time. The roster template, at this point, does not associate any particular available agent from a roster of agents with these times, but provides a skeletal set of times that need to be filled. Col. 5, lines 65-67 – col. 6, lines 1-5: In a variation of the above scheme, in many instances, the template and the association of agents to the template may be fairly consistent for the defined period of time. For example, consider a relatively simple schedule involving five agents, each of which works a day shift during the week (e.g., Monday-Friday). Further, one of the five agents is selected to work the weekend shift (Saturday). The contact center is presumed to be closed on Sunday. Col. 6, lines 26-34: This example is reflective of a contact center operation where the staff comprises a predictable number of agents that are repeatedly scheduled over a recurring time period. In the above example, the recurring time period is one week. Further, these agents have a relatively stable portion of their respective schedule--e.g., each agent usually works each day during the week, although the exact start and stop times may vary. Col. 6, lines 54-67: This example is reflective of a contact center operation where the staff comprises a predictable number of agents that are repeatedly scheduled over a recurring time period. In the above example, the recurring time period is one week. Further, these agents have a relatively stable portion of their respective schedule--e.g., each agent usually works each day during the week, although the exact start and stop times may vary.
As per claims 5 and 16: Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
wherein:
the rotation comprises a listing of a plurality of user entities assigned to perform the task in accordance with the task schedule; and
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter shows in col. 10, lines 11-25: Turning to FIG. 3, the shift scheduling table 300 illustrates the situation. For this purpose, attention can be focused only on the grayed-out cells, which indicate which agents are allocated to a weekend shift. Normally, cell 310 would be associated with Agent 2 and grayed-out, but Agent 2 has indicated in advance of creating this schedule that they cannot work the weekend for Week 4. As can be seen, instead cell 320 is grayed-out indicating that Agent 1 is working Week 4, and instead Agent 2 is working the weekend for Week 5 as evidenced by cell 330 being grayed-out. Essentially, Agent 1 and Agent 2 have `swapped` their respective weekend shifts. Then, the cycle repeats with Agent 5 working the next weekend shift, etc., also see Fig. 3 and related text.
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
the method further comprises: causing rendering of the GUI on a display of respective computing devices of at least a subset of the plurality of user entities.
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter shows in col. 10, lines 11-25: Turning to FIG. 3, the shift scheduling table 300 illustrates the situation. For this purpose, attention can be focused only on the grayed-out cells, which indicate which agents are allocated to a weekend shift. Normally, cell 310 would be associated with Agent 2 and grayed-out, but Agent 2 has indicated in advance of creating this schedule that they cannot work the weekend for Week 4. As can be seen, instead cell 320 is grayed-out indicating that Agent 1 is working Week 4, and instead Agent 2 is working the weekend for Week 5 as evidenced by cell 330 being grayed-out. Essentially, Agent 1 and Agent 2 have `swapped` their respective weekend shifts. Then, the cycle repeats with Agent 5 working the next weekend shift, etc., also see Fig. 3 and related text.
As per claims 6 and 17: Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
further comprising:
receiving the at least one modification to the rotation from at least one of the respective computing devices via an application programming interface (API).
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter shows in col. 11, lines 1-12: In many contact centers, agents may negotiate among themselves to arrange a "private" swap of shifts. If so, this ad-hoc swap is presumed be acceptable to the parties and most likely acceptable with the administrator. This type of ad-hoc swap can be reflected in the schedule by manually updating the schedule. However, in instances where the Agent is not able to negotiate a swap and merely informs the administrator of their unavailability, then the administrator must somehow update the schedule and the above approach allows the updating to be done in an equitable manner. If the swap is mutually agreeable, then it may not be necessary to alter the allocated points.
As per claims 7 and 18: Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
further comprising:
generating a record of modifications to the rotation based at least in part on the updated version of the rotation, the at least one historical version of the rotation, and the timeline; and
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter shows in col. 11, lines 1-12: In many contact centers, agents may negotiate among themselves to arrange a "private" swap of shifts. If so, this ad-hoc swap is presumed be acceptable to the parties and most likely acceptable with the administrator. This type of ad-hoc swap can be reflected in the schedule by manually updating the schedule. However, in instances where the Agent is not able to negotiate a swap and merely informs the administrator of their unavailability, then the administrator must somehow update the schedule and the above approach allows the updating to be done in an equitable manner. If the swap is mutually agreeable, then it may not be necessary to alter the allocated points.
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
provisioning the record of modifications to at least one computing device.
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter shows in col. 11, lines 1-12: In many contact centers, agents may negotiate among themselves to arrange a "private" swap of shifts. If so, this ad-hoc swap is presumed be acceptable to the parties and most likely acceptable with the administrator. This type of ad-hoc swap can be reflected in the schedule by manually updating the schedule. However, in instances where the Agent is not able to negotiate a swap and merely informs the administrator of their unavailability, then the administrator must somehow update the schedule and the above approach allows the updating to be done in an equitable manner. If the swap is mutually agreeable, then it may not be necessary to alter the allocated points.
As per claims 8 and 19: Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
wherein:
the rotation comprises a listing of at least one user entity assigned to perform the task in accordance with the task schedule; and
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter shows in col. 11, lines 1-12: In many contact centers, agents may negotiate among themselves to arrange a "private" swap of shifts. If so, this ad-hoc swap is presumed be acceptable to the parties and most likely acceptable with the administrator. This type of ad-hoc swap can be reflected in the schedule by manually updating the schedule. However, in instances where the Agent is not able to negotiate a swap and merely informs the administrator of their unavailability, then the administrator must somehow update the schedule and the above approach allows the updating to be done in an equitable manner. If the swap is mutually agreeable, then it may not be necessary to alter the allocated points, also see Fig. 3, and related text.
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
the at least one modification to the rotation comprises at least one of i) a removal of a user entity from the listing, or ii) an addition of a user entity to the listing.
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter shows in col. 11, lines 1-12: In many contact centers, agents may negotiate among themselves to arrange a "private" swap of shifts. If so, this ad-hoc swap is presumed be acceptable to the parties and most likely acceptable with the administrator. This type of ad-hoc swap can be reflected in the schedule by manually updating the schedule. However, in instances where the Agent is not able to negotiate a swap and merely informs the administrator of their unavailability, then the administrator must somehow update the schedule and the above approach allows the updating to be done in an equitable manner. If the swap is mutually agreeable, then it may not be necessary to alter the allocated points, also see Fig. 3, and related text.
As per claim 9: Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
wherein:
the at least one user entity comprises a first user entity assigned to perform the task and at least one additional user entity associated with supplementing the first user entity in performance of the task.
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter shows in col. 11, lines 32-47: Next, that selected agent is assigned to work the weekend shift in operation 404. The starting point of which agent is assigned to work the upcoming shift may be arbitrary in some instances. In this example, the lowest ranking agent ("LRA") is selected. These operations 402 and 404 may be used in a so-called "fresh-start" scenario, when agents are working, e.g., in a new environment, beginning a new campaign, etc. In other instances, the upcoming schedule may take into account the prior work schedules for existing agents. For example, if a new schedule is being developed for a new campaign and the lowest ranking agent selected in operation 402 just completed a weekend shift from a prior campaign, the administrator may override the selection from operation 402 and instead assign a different agent to the next weekend shift (not shown in FIG. 4).
As per claim 10: Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
wherein:
the rotation comprises a task interval associated with performance of the task pursuant to the task schedule;
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter shows in col. 2, lines 42-52: An initial step may involve developing a forecast of the call volume expected to be serviced for a defined period of time. This forecast may be based on application of historical call data or can use other techniques for generating the anticipated call volume to be handled. Next, a roster template may be produced, which indicates an optimum number of agents required at different times and the associated skill sets that are required to work during the defined period of time. The roster template, at this point, does not associate any particular available agent from a roster of agents with these times, but provides a skeletal set of times that need to be filled. Col. 5, lines 65-67 – col. 6, lines 1-5: In a variation of the above scheme, in many instances, the template and the association of agents to the template may be fairly consistent for the defined period of time. For example, consider a relatively simple schedule involving five agents, each of which works a day shift during the week (e.g., Monday-Friday). Further, one of the five agents is selected to work the weekend shift (Saturday). The contact center is presumed to be closed on Sunday. Col. 6, lines 26-34: This example is reflective of a contact center operation where the staff comprises a predictable number of agents that are repeatedly scheduled over a recurring time period. In the above example, the recurring time period is one week. Further, these agents have a relatively stable portion of their respective schedule--e.g., each agent usually works each day during the week, although the exact start and stop times may vary. Col. 6, lines 54-67: This example is reflective of a contact center operation where the staff comprises a predictable number of agents that are repeatedly scheduled over a recurring time period. In the above example, the recurring time period is one week. Further, these agents have a relatively stable portion of their respective schedule--e.g., each agent usually works each day during the week, although the exact start and stop times may vary.
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
and the at least one modification to the rotation comprises an adjustment to the task interval.
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter shows in col. 2, lines 42-52: An initial step may involve developing a forecast of the call volume expected to be serviced for a defined period of time. This forecast may be based on application of historical call data or can use other techniques for generating the anticipated call volume to be handled. Next, a roster template may be produced, which indicates an optimum number of agents required at different times and the associated skill sets that are required to work during the defined period of time. The roster template, at this point, does not associate any particular available agent from a roster of agents with these times, but provides a skeletal set of times that need to be filled. Col. 5, lines 65-67 – col. 6, lines 1-5: In a variation of the above scheme, in many instances, the template and the association of agents to the template may be fairly consistent for the defined period of time. For example, consider a relatively simple schedule involving five agents, each of which works a day shift during the week (e.g., Monday-Friday). Further, one of the five agents is selected to work the weekend shift (Saturday). The contact center is presumed to be closed on Sunday. Col. 6, lines 26-34: This example is reflective of a contact center operation where the staff comprises a predictable number of agents that are repeatedly scheduled over a recurring time period. In the above example, the recurring time period is one week. Further, these agents have a relatively stable portion of their respective schedule--e.g., each agent usually works each day during the week, although the exact start and stop times may vary. Col. 6, lines 54-67: This example is reflective of a contact center operation where the staff comprises a predictable number of agents that are repeatedly scheduled over a recurring time period. In the above example, the recurring time period is one week. Further, these agents have a relatively stable portion of their respective schedule--e.g., each agent usually works each day during the week, although the exact start and stop times may vary.
As per claim 11: Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
wherein:
the rotation comprises:
a plurality of user entities assigned to perform the task in accordance with the task schedule; and
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter shows in col. 11, lines 1-12: In many contact centers, agents may negotiate among themselves to arrange a "private" swap of shifts. If so, this ad-hoc swap is presumed be acceptable to the parties and most likely acceptable with the administrator. This type of ad-hoc swap can be reflected in the schedule by manually updating the schedule. However, in instances where the Agent is not able to negotiate a swap and merely informs the administrator of their unavailability, then the administrator must somehow update the schedule and the above approach allows the updating to be done in an equitable manner. If the swap is mutually agreeable, then it may not be necessary to alter the allocated points, also see Fig. 3, and related text.
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
a notification hierarchy for provisioning notifications to the plurality of user entities; and
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter shows in col. 7, lines 37-49: Recall that each agent is expected to work a weekend shift, and since the agents are listed in decreasing order of seniority, it is presumed that the least senior agent is selected first to work the weekend shift. Thus, for week 1, the cell 210a for Agent 5 is grayed-out, indicating that Agent 5 is scheduled to work the upcoming weekend. For week two, the cell 215a for Agent 4 is grayed-out, to reflect that Agent 4 is scheduled to work the weekend. For week three, cell 220 is grayed-out showing that Agent 3 is scheduled, and week four has cell 225 grayed-out for Agent 2. Finally, in week 5, cell 230 is grayed-out reflecting that Agent 1 is scheduled for that corresponding weekend. Col. 8, lines 26-34: The shift schedule table 200 of FIG. 2A shows a seven week schedule where the shaded cells indicate which agent is scheduled to work the weekend shift. Further, the agents are assumed to be in a prioritized order, based on some criteria. This could be based on seniority, skill level, alphabetical order, etc. Thus, agent 1 is the highest ranking and agent 5 is the lowest ranking. The ranking will be used as a tie-breaker, as will be seen. Col. 24, lines 31-42: Once the WFM has completed this operation, a response message 1420 is provided back to the call handler 130, which may either approve or deny the agent from logging into the call handler. The call handler, in turn, will send a notification message 1425 to the agent workstation 160 reporting whether the agent is authorized to log into the system or not. In other embodiments, the WFM 155 may merely acknowledge the login request to the call handler, allowing the agent to log on even though not scheduled. In such cases, the WFM or call handler may send a notification to a supervisor reporting the unexpected agent login.
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
the method further comprises:
in response to writing the updated version of the rotation to the rotation table, generating an on-call event notification based at least in part on the updated version of the rotation; and
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter does not explicitly show the above limitations. Reference Fearon shows the above limitation at least in [0410] The next four phases for this effort should be: [0411] Use case development as part of the functional specification [0412] Design and planning as part of the functional specification [0413] High-level user interface design with storyboard and mockups [0414] Construction, stabilization and deployment as part of the development. [0418] The timeline for the next steps are delineated below: [0419] Use Case and Requirements Gathering [0420] Technology Proof-of-Concept and System Design [0421] High-Level User Interface Design [0422] Functional Specification Document Composition [0423] Functional Specification Document Delivery.
Regarding the claim limitation below, Reference Etter in view of Fearon shows in:
provisioning the on-call event notification to a respective computing device of at least a subset of the plurality of user entities based at least in part on the notification hierarchy.
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter does not explicitly show the above limitations. Reference Fearon shows the above limitation at least in [0410] The next four phases for this effort should be: [0411] Use case development as part of the functional specification [0412] Design and planning as part of the functional specification [0413] High-level user interface design with storyboard and mockups [0414] Construction, stabilization and deployment as part of the development. [0418] The timeline for the next steps are delineated below: [0419] Use Case and Requirements Gathering [0420] Technology Proof-of-Concept and System Design [0421] High-Level User Interface Design [0422] Functional Specification Document Composition [0423] Functional Specification Document Delivery.
Regarding the claim limitations above, Reference Etter shows in col. 7, lines 37-49: Recall that each agent is expected to work a weekend shift, and since the agents are listed in decreasing order of seniority, it is presumed that the least senior agent is selected first to work the weekend shift. Thus, for week 1, the cell 210a for Agent 5 is grayed-out, indicating that Agent 5 is scheduled to work the upcoming weekend. For week two, the cell 215a for Agent 4 is grayed-out, to reflect that Agent 4 is scheduled to work the weekend. For week three, cell 220 is grayed-out showing that Agent 3 is scheduled, and week four has cell 225 grayed-out for Agent 2. Finally, in week 5, cell 230 is grayed-out reflecting that Agent 1 is scheduled for that corresponding weekend. Col. 8, lines 26-34: The shift schedule table 200 of FIG. 2A shows a seven week schedule where the shaded cells indicate which agent is scheduled to work the weekend shift. Further, the agents are assumed to be in a prioritized order, based on some criteria. This could be based on seniority, skill level, alphabetical order, etc. Thus, agent 1 is the highest ranking and agent 5 is the lowest ranking. The ranking will be used as a tie-breaker, as will be seen. Col. 24, lines 31-42: Once the WFM has completed this operation, a response message 1420 is provided back to the call handler 130, which may either approve or deny the agent from logging into the call handler. The call handler, in turn, will send a notification message 1425 to the agent workstation 160 reporting whether the agent is authorized to log into the system or not. In other embodiments, the WFM 155 may merely acknowledge the login request to the call handler, allowing the agent to log on even though not scheduled. In such cases, the WFM or call handler may send a notification to a supervisor reporting the unexpected agent login.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments made to the previously presented claims.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicants argue on page(s) 11-12 of applicants remarks that “On pages 3-11 the Office Action rejects Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. @ 101, as allegedly being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more for reasons of record. While Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection as applied to the previous claims, Applicant asserts that the claims as amended herein are directed to patent eligible subject matter and, therefore, overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. @ 101. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the @ 101 rejection.” (see applicants remarks for more details).
Response to Argument #1
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Please see Claim Interpretation and 101 Rejection above. The amended claims are still broad and can reasonably be interpreted to be performed by a human being.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicants argue on page(s) 12-13 of applicants remarks that “Etter does not teach or suggest these amended limitations. For example, Etter describes that a "[workforce management system] WFM 155 is used by an administrator to... update schedules based on agents failing to show or requiring unscheduled time off," but the reference does not teach or suggest "enabling write access of a schedule management service pursuant to the rotation table in response to the detecting of the at least one modification to the rotation" where "the write access of the schedule management service pursuant to the rotation table is disabled unless a change to the rotation is detected."2 Indeed, Etter is completely silent as to enablement of write access privileges, let alone enablement of write access privileges for a schedule management service in response to detection of a modification/change to a rotation, and where enablement permits a schedule management service to provision I/O requests to a rotation table. Fearon cannot cure the deficiencies of Etter. The Office Action relies on Fearon primarily for other aspects of the claim, and does not identify any disclosure in Fearon teaching or suggesting a schedule management service whose write access to a rotation table is disabled unless a change is detected, or enabling such write access to permit provisioning of I/O requests to the rotation table. Accordingly, the reference cannot cure Etter's deficiencies.” (see applicants remarks for more details).
Response to Argument #2
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In light of the specification [0066], [0068], Reference Etter shows in col. 5, lines 42-54: An initial step may involve developing a forecast of the call volume expected to be serviced for a defined period of time. This forecast may be based on application of historical call data or can use other techniques for generating the anticipated call volume to be handled. Next, a roster template may be produced, which indicates an optimum number of agents required at different times and the associated skill sets that are required to work during the defined period of time. The roster template, at this point, does not associate any particular available agent from a roster of agents with these times, but provides a skeletal set of times that need to be filled. Col. 15, lines 32-45: Adding an agent into a schedule can also be performed by simply including the new agent in the group of agents and assigning the added agent as having the lowest (or highest) score. This requires providing the new agent with an initial score into the shift schedule table. The score assigned to the agent defines how quickly that agent will be integrated into the schedule. For example, based on the assigned score value the agent can be integrated into the schedule in the current stripe cycle, or can be set aside for a number of cycles, and then integrated. The latter operation allows a novice agent to be scheduled, for example, during the week during their initial month before then scheduling the agent to work a weekend shift.
Reference Etter also shows the update happening, which can be reasonably understood as permitting access at least in Col. 11, lines 1-15: In many contact centers, agents may negotiate among themselves to arrange a "private" swap of shifts. If so, this ad-hoc swap is presumed be acceptable to the parties and most likely acceptable with the administrator. This type of ad-hoc swap can be reflected in the schedule by manually updating the schedule. However, in instances where the Agent is not able to negotiate a swap and merely informs the administrator of their unavailability, then the administrator must somehow update the schedule and the above approach allows the updating to be done in an equitable manner. If the swap is mutually agreeable, then it may not be necessary to alter the allocated points. Col. 24, lines 51-62: FIG. 14B illustrates another embodiment wherein the comparison of the agent login information is compared with the generated agent schedule in the call handler. In this message flow 1450, the WFM 155 generates the agent schedule as previously described in operation 1452. Next, the WFM 155 transfers the schedule information to the call handler 130 in message 1456. This may be done on a periodic basis. For example, every week a new agent schedule may be generated and downloaded to the call handler. Or, daily updates or subsets of a schedule may be sent to the call handler. Reference Etter shows at least in col. 21, lines 17-33: FIG. 13 illustrates one screen display 1300 of a graphical user interface ("GUI") that may be used by a contact center administrator to schedule agents. The screen display 1300 provides a plurality of function tabs 1301-1304 for performing various functions associated with the process. For example, prior to assigning agents which is associated with a function tab 1301, the administrator may have selected a function tab 1302 to create various cycles. These may be generated anew or by editing and modifying an existing cycle. Another function tab 1303 may be used to create roster templates. As with the cycles, these may be named and have various attributes associated with them. Finally, another function tab 1304 may be used to view completed schedules. Additional tabs may be used to define shifts that are used in cycles, modify/add to the rules for checking agent assignments, view draft schedules, etc.
However, Reference Etter does not explicitly show permission for write access and as such does not explicitly show the above limitations. However, Reference Fearon shows the above limitations at least on page 15, Table 9: TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 Req. No Definition 2.1. The application shall utilize Microsoft Outlook 2007 authentication and authorization mechanisms to authenticate and authorize users. 2.2. The application shall define read/write permissions to calendars based upon calendar type. 2.3. The application shall contain the following roles for calendar: primary, partner, child or senior, special occasions, employee, residence, or other (project).
Reference Etter and Reference Fearon are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of scheduling and task management. Said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Fearon, particularly the ability to have plurality of versions available for view by the user (Fearon: [0689]-[0713]), in the disclosure of Reference Etter, particularly in the ability to update when new information is received (Etter: Col. 11, lines 1-15), in order to provide for a system that brings the power of common business automation tools out of the enterprise world and into the home, just as cell phones evolved from exclusive business tools to everyday consumer essentials as taught by Reference Fearon (see at least in [0182]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Fearon for seeing a plurality of versions allows the process of scheduling and task management can be made more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar scheduling and task management field of endeavor, and in the combination 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Etter in view of Reference Fearon, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL Reference:
T. Feld and F. Slomka, "Exact Interference of Tasks With Variable Rate-Dependent Behavior," in IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 954-967, May 2018, doi: 10.1109/TCAD.2017.2729459.
In embedded real-time systems, the schedulability analysis is an important method to verify whether the real-time constraints are satisfied. Especially, engine control systems in the automotive industry are particular challenging regarding their real-time analysis. Some of the tasks of such systems are triggered at predetermined angular values of the crankshaft. Thus, the frequency of activation increases for higher crankshaft rotation speeds. To avoid overloads, these tasks reduce their computational demand for higher rotation speeds. The variable rate-dependent behavior (VRB) task model has been proposed as a means of modeling such rate-dependent behavior. In this paper, we introduce a new method for the exact computation of interference for VRB-tasks. A number of experimental results are reported to validate our approach and compare it with existing analysis. These experimental results illustrate that our method outperforms previous results in terms of precision and runtime.
Foreign Reference:
(CN 110895734 A) Dong. The invention relates to the technical field of plant operation auxiliary device, especially claims an intelligent factory system, which improves the intelligent, so as to reduce the manpower resource waste, comprising an enterprise management system and the enterprise production system, enterprise management system comprises ERP services, HR management, software, financial services, banking services, inventory WMS services, mobile marketing, enterprise application and full channel production system comprises a batch engine server module, a batch editor module, a batch scheduler module. a report module, a third party interface module and database manager module, a batch engine server module is the core part of the enterprise production system, mainly to achieve the process management and unit monitoring function, mass editor module so that the user can realize the configuration of the physical model, the production formulation and production planning in the engineering, batch scheduler module is a real-time scheduling system, is directly faces to the part of the user.
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 NANCY PRASAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3265. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571)270-5396. 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.
/N.N.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights