DETAILED ACTION
This office action is made final. Claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 08/06/2026, amended claims 1, 3, 5, 8-13, 15, 17 and 20.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection to claims 1-20, under 35 USC 101 (Alice), will be maintained.
The previously pending rejection Double Patenting to claims 1-20 will be maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received on 08/06/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Moreover, any new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by Applicant's amendments to the claims. The art rejection has been updated to address these amendments.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant asserts that “the independent claims 1, 13, and 20, as amended integrate any abstract idea into a practical application.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above, under the second prong of Step 2A, we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55.
Here, under the second prong of Step 2A, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of claim 1, and similarly claims 13, and 20) recite “a worker scheduling data; receive a constraint configuration; receive a cost function configuration; receive scheduling configuration data; and generate a set of shift candidates based at least in part on the scheduling configuration data, wherein the set of shift candidates includes a plurality of alternative shift candidates for a same shift time period that differ from one another in placement, within the same shift time period, of a designated period determined based at least in part on the scheduling configuration data; determine a cost function using the cost function configuration; determine a set of constraints using the constraint configuration; and after generating the set of shift candidates, determine a final schedule by selecting, from the generated set of shift candidates, a subset of the shift candidates for inclusion in the final schedule and assigning workers to the selected shift candidates, wherein the selecting and assigning are performed simultaneously such that violations of the set of constraints are minimized and the cost function is minimize are carried out by at least one computing device,” and these additional elements, individually and in combination, are nothing more than computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Accordingly, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 103:
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claim rejections have been considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth below in this Office action. The art rejection has been updated to address these amendments.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over respective corresponding Claims 1-20 of Patent No. 12,165,088, Claims 1-21 of Patent No. 11,783,245, and Claims 1-24 of Patent No. 11,531,939 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application claims as mapped above can be anticipated by the reference application claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claims 1, 13, and 20 recite an abstract idea. Claims 1, 13, and 20 include “a worker scheduling data; receive a constraint configuration; receive a cost function configuration; receive scheduling configuration data; and generate a set of shift candidates based at least in part on the scheduling configuration data, wherein the set of shift candidates includes a plurality of alternative shift candidates for a same shift time period that differ from one another in placement, within the same shift time period, of a designated period determined based at least in part on the scheduling configuration data; determine a cost function using the cost function configuration; determine a set of constraints using the constraint configuration; and after generating the set of shift candidates, determine a final schedule by selecting, from the generated set of shift candidates, a subset of the shift candidates for inclusion in the final schedule and assigning workers to the selected shift candidates, wherein the selecting and assigning are performed simultaneously such that violations of the set of constraints are minimized and the cost function is minimized”.
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the elements above recite mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical calculations because the elements describe a process for shift design and assignment. As a result, claims 1, 13, and 20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2-12 and 14-19 further describe the process for managing shift design and assignment. As a result, claims 2-12 and 14-19 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 13, and 20.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claims 1, 13, and 20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 13, and 20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1, 13, and 20 include a processor, an interface, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 1, 13, and 20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-4, 8-12, and 14-17 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1, 13, and 20. As a result, claims 2-4, 8-12, and 14-17 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 13, and 20.
Claims 5-7 and 18-19 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 5-7 and 18-19 include a user interface and a slide bar. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 5-7 and 18-19 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claims 1, 13, and 20 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claims 1, 13, and 20 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1, 13, and 20 include a processor, an interface, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, independent claims 1, 13, and 20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-4, 8-12, and 14-17 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1, 13, and 20. As a result, claims 2-4, 8-12, and 14-17 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 13, and 20.
Claims 5-7 and 18-19 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 5-7 and 18-19 include a user interface and interaction with a slide bar. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 5-7 and 18-19 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sager et al. (US Pub No. 10,762,455) (hereinafter Sager et al.) in view of Ramakrishnan et al. (US Pub No. 2004/0193472) (hereinafter Ramakrishnan et al.).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, Sager discloses a system for shift design and assignment, comprising:
a worker scheduling data interface (see Sager, column 3, lines 2-66, wherein generate a graphical user interface (GUI) to display and configure scheduling models, staff planning….. automatic scheduling of employees, task management, communication of work or role assignments)
configured to:
receive a constraint (see Sager, column 7, lines 51-52, wherein applying constraints to one or more mathematical scheduling models) configuration:
receive a cost function configuration (see Sager, column 14, lines 59-63, wherein the over-and under-costs may be set and parameters may be given for a non-linear (piecewise linear) cost function, so a cost of violating the constraints increases super-linearly with an increasing amount of violation); and
receive scheduling configuration data (see Sager, column 16, lines 24-26, wherein long-range staff planning engine 200 sets general configuration options for the number of weeks in the planning horizon and the identity of shift strategies); and
a processor (see Sager, Fig. 2) configured to:
generate a set of shift candidates based at least in part on the scheduling configuration data, wherein the set of shift candidates includes a plurality of alternative shift candidates (see Sager, column 2, lines 42-50 & column 16, lines 1-26, wherein a shift modeling horizon comprises a shift represented by a start time and an end time. According to embodiments, a shift cover modeling horizon comprises very coarse time buckets. A shift is represented by the start/end of a minimal "cover" of the shift (i.e. the smallest period that covers the shift and starts/ends on the sparse sample points), plus aggregated work variables for each time bucket (i.e. how much time do they actually work within each bucket of the cover). According to embodiments, an aggregated horizon comprises no shifts and no cover. According to this scheduling model time horizon, the scheduling model represents if the employee is working on this day and the aggregated hours the employee works (aggregated into large time buckets, such as, for example, 6-hour buckets)……At activity 406, long-range staff planning engine 200 sets general configuration options for the number of weeks in the planning horizon and the identity of shift strategies; column 11, lines 9-11, wherein a configuration object (comprising sampled candidate shifts) and a scheduling model as its input and make changes to a scheduling model object as its output);
determine a cost function using the cost function configuration (see Sager, column 9, lines 15-17, wherein a scheduling model to generate a MIP model comprising one or more constraints, variables, and a cost reduction objective function);
determine a set of constraints using the constraint configuration (see Sager, column 9, lines 15-17, wherein a scheduling model to generate a MIP model comprising one or more constraints, variables, and a cost reduction objective function…..; and column 10, lines 32-35, wherein constraints 224 may comprise one or more conditions limiting solutions generated by solver 206. According to embodiments, categories of constraints may be, for example, 35 static, dynamic, or model constraints); and
after generating the set of shift candidates, determine a final schedule by selecting, from the generated set of shift candidates (see Sager, column 16, lines 1-26, wherein a shift modeling horizon comprises a shift represented by a start time and an end time. According to embodiments, a shift cover modeling horizon comprises very coarse time buckets; column 9, lines 12-26, wherein staff planner 110 solves one or more MIP models expressing a long-range staff planning problem. As described in more detail below, long range staff planning engine 202 uses a scheduling model to generate a MIP model comprising one or more constraints, variables, and a cost reduction objective function. Solver 206 generates one or more solutions to the MIP model which are used by long-range staff planning engine 202 to generate long-range staff plans and one or more hiring and cross training suggestions. According to embodiments, solver 206 generates a separate solution for long-range staff planning models and short-term scheduling models. A final solution is generated for both a long-range staff planning problem and a short-term scheduling problem from separate and unique lists of models combined to generate a final output),
a subset of the shift candidates for inclusion in the final schedule and assigning workers to the selected shift candidates, wherein the selecting and assigning are performed simultaneously such that violations of the set of constraints are minimized and the cost function is minimized (see Sager, column 14, lines 11-33, wherein the data structures representing a long-range scheduling model and/or short-range scheduling model. According to embodiments, during execution of method 400, scheduling model 502 receives one or more model values 504 and model constraints 506. Scheduling model 502 receives a copy of high-level constraints that were created during problem initialization and/or which were relevant to scheduling model 502, and will store the copy as model constraints 506 as they are generated during posting of constraints. Model values 504 that are variable will be mapped to MIP variables when the model is solved, and model constraints 506 will be mapped to MIP linear constraints….data structures representing scheduling decisions. When the scheduling decisions have been made prior to a scheduling run, model values 504 comprise a fixed value. When the scheduling decisions are still undecided, model values 504 comprise a variable. For example, model values 504 may represent a particular employee, performing a particular shift, at a particular time, on a particular date, such as, for example, "Employee A performing a 7-hour shift starting at 8 a.m. Jan. 22nd; column 7, lines 38-42, wherein a scheduling process, which comprises both long-range staff planning and short term scheduling, are executed simultaneously, which reduces the time needed for on-demand, real-time scheduling runs; column 16, lines 3-15, wherein a shift cover modeling horizon comprises very coarse time buckets (i.e., divide periods into manageable, structured segments). A shift is represented by the start/end of a minimal "cover" of the shift (i.e. the smallest period that covers the shift and starts/ends on the sparse sample points), plus aggregated work variables for each time bucket (i.e. how much time do they actually work within each bucket of the cover)…….According to this scheduling model time horizon, the scheduling model represents if the employee is working on this day and the aggregated hours the employee works (aggregated into large time buckets, such as, for example, 6-hour buckets); column 9, lines 23-26, wherein generated for both a long-range staff planning problem and a short-term scheduling problem from separate and unique lists of models combined to generate a final output; column 17, lines 62-67, wherein initiates solver 206 to solve the long-range staff planning model using the modified long-range staff planning model. Existing employees will receive different working times and job assignments as the model uses the extra job options and simulated employees to better meet the overall labor needs; column 19, lines 1-67 & 20, lines 1-67, wherein solver 206 cannot find a solution that meets this restriction, the solver 206 may, instead, not schedule the employee for any role in that day, which (which may lead to violations of minimum weekly hours or contract minimum hours); and column 9, lines 15-17, wherein a scheduling model to generate a MIP model comprising one or more constraints, variables, and a cost reduction objective function).
Sager et al. fails to explicitly disclose for a same shift time period that differ from one another in placement, within the same shift time period, of a designated period determined based at least in part on the scheduling configuration data.
Analogous art Ramakrishnan discloses a plurality of alternative shift candidates for a same shift time period that differ from one another in placement, within the same shift time period, of a designated period determined based at least in part on the scheduling configuration data (see Ramakrishnan, para [0004], wherein Workforce planning can generally be broken down by the length of the planning period, typically because different planning periods may have different constraints. In this regard, an organization can develop shift schedules defining the working starting and stopping times for each worker over a single working day; and para [0003], wherein an organization may be required to consider work rules, such as those relating to the use of part-time workers versus fulltime workers. In addition, an organization may be required to consider the number and pattern of daily shifts, generally defined as the work schedules of workers for a specific day. In this regard, an organization may consider breaking up the day into multiple shifts (e.g., day, evening and/or night shifts) with alternative start-end times, and may also consider including break periods, such as for meals ( e.g., lunch)).
Sager directed to a system for determining working times and job assignments of the one or more employees. Ramakrishnan directed to an optimum set of shift schedules can be selected based upon the plurality of candidate shift schedules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Sager, regarding the System for Schedule Optimization for Long-Range Staff Planning, to have included a plurality of alternative shift candidates for a same shift time period that differ from one another in placement, within the same shift time period, of a designated period determined based at least in part on the scheduling configuration data because both inventions teach enhance candidate schedules within a schedule. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Sager discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the cost function is expressed at least in part in terms of a set of decision variables, a worker cost data of a worker data, and the scheduling configuration data (see Sager, column 14, lines 28-29, wherein model values 504 that are variable will be mapped to MIP variables when the model is solved……the scheduling decisions are still undecided, model values 504 comprise a variable; column 9, lines 6-7, wherein workforce schedules for one or two weeks, a month, a pay period).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Sager discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the set of constraints is based at least in part on a set of decision variables, the set of shift candidates, a worker data, a labor demand data, and the scheduling configuration data (see Sager, column 14, lines 28-29, wherein model values 504 that are variable will be mapped to MIP variables when the model is solved……the scheduling decisions are still undecided, model values 504 comprise a variable; column 7, lines 25-29, wherein generate work schedules for each employee at fifteen minute increments…..workforce schedules for one or two weeks, a month, a pay period; column 7, lines 14-16, wherein adding new employees or adding additional jobs or roles to existing employees; column 8, lines 25-29, wherein projected labor demand for a given period at one or more sites and recommends one or more hiring and/or cross training suggestions to meet the projected labor demand; and column 3, lines 2-66, wherein generate a graphical user interface (GUI) to display and configure scheduling models, staff planning….. automatic scheduling of employees, task management, communication of work or role assignments).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Sager discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the cost function configuration comprises relative weighting (see Sager, column 18, lines 4-6, wherein generates a list of hiring and cross-training suggestions for display and prioritizes the list based, at least in part, on the calculated penalty (i.e., prioritize certain objectives over others by assigning specific importance to different terms)).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Sager discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the relative weighting is set using a user interface (see Sager, column 3, lines 2-66, wherein generate a graphical user interface (GUI) to display).
Regarding claim 8, Sager discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the constraint configuration comprises at least one of labor demand data or worker data (see Sager, column 7, lines 14-16, wherein adding new employees or adding additional jobs or roles to existing employees; column 8, lines 25-29, wherein projected labor demand for a given period at one or more sites and recommends one or more hiring and/or cross training suggestions to meet the projected labor demand; and column 3, lines 2-66, wherein generate a graphical user interface (GUI) to display and configure scheduling models, staff planning….. automatic scheduling of employees, task management, communication of work or role assignments).
Regarding claim 10, Sager discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the constraint configuration comprises employee scheduling data (see Sager, column 10, lines 58-63, wherein staff planning problem, constraints comprise limitations on possible schedules including maximum or minimum employee hours per week, per day, per period, or like period of time, time periods where an employee cannot work).
Regarding claim 11, Sager discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the employee scheduling data comprises at least one of a role, a skill level, or a pay (see Sager, column 4, lines 34-35, wherein employee to retrain for the job and/or role identified in the cross-training suggestion; and column 22, lines 16-17, wherein the current set of employees and the employees' current job skills).
Regarding claim 12, Sager discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the employee scheduling data comprises at least one of whether the employee works five days a week, whether the employee has two consecutive days off, a minimum hours per week, a maximum hours per week, a preferred hours per week, available days, available time, preferred days, or preferred times (see Sager, column 23, lines 45-47, wherein availability, the hired employee would need to be available from 8pm until 6am, an overnight shift; and column 10, lines 58-63, wherein staff planning problem, constraints comprise limitations on possible schedules including maximum or minimum employee hours per week, per day, per period, or like period of time, time periods where an employee cannot work).
Regarding claim 17, Sager discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the relative weighting is associated with at least one of worker preferences, consistency, or labor cost (see Sager, column 24, lines 1-10, wherein staff planning engine 200 may minimize penalties, not only be spreading out gaps, but also by calculating a long-range staff plan with possible cross trained employees or with new employees having availabilities and skills to meet the gaps. For example, if a site needed five cashiers in the morning, but only three were available, there would still be two cashiers missing, and for each cashier missing penalty points would be accrued. The amount of penalty points may be weighted based on how far away the goal is).
Regarding claim 20 is rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claim 1, respectively, since it is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim corresponding to the system claim. Claim 20 recites additional feature a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (see Sager, column 7, lines 57-58).
Claims 5, 7, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sager et al. (US Pub No. 10,762,455) (hereinafter Sager et al.), in view of Ramakrishnan et al. (US Pub No. 2004/0193472) (hereinafter Ramakrishnan et al.), further in view of Murata et al. (US Pub No. 2003/0163790) (hereinafter Murata et al.).
Regarding claim 5, Sager discloses the system of claim 1, wherein one or more configurations are received via user interaction (user interface) (see Sager, column 16, lines 25-26, wherein general configuration options for the number of weeks in the planning horizon; and column 7, lines 9-11, wherein the GUI provides for modifying and configuring the long-range staff planning problem and selecting and modifying hiring and cross-training suggestions).
Sager et al. and Ramakrishnan et al. combined fail to explicitly disclose received via user interaction with a slide bar.
Analogous art Murata discloses received via user interaction with a slide bar (see Murata, para [0130], wherein the slide bar of the quality information X specified by the user; and para [0118], wherein Figs. 17 and 18 illustrate examples of quality information setting screens. On the quality information setting screen, slide bars).
Sager directed to a system for determining working times and job assignments of the one or more employees. Murata directed to editing processing which enables a user to freely edit solution data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Sager, regarding the System for Schedule Optimization for Long-Range Staff Planning, to have included received via user interaction with a slide bar because both inventions teach enhance user experience by dragging a slider bar. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 7 & 19, Sager discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the user interface, as set forth above with claim 6.
Sager et al. and Ramakrishnan et al. combined fail to explicitly disclose comprises a slide bar.
Analogous art Murata discloses a slide bar (see Murata, para [0118], wherein Figs. 17 and 18 illustrate examples of quality information setting screens. On the quality information setting screen, slide bars).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Murata would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 5.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sager et al. (US Pub No. 10,762,455) (hereinafter Sager et al.), in view of Ramakrishnan et al. (US Pub No. 2004/0193472) (hereinafter Ramakrishnan et al.), further in view of deSilva et al. (US Pub No. 2005/0004828) (hereinafter deSilva).
Regarding claim 9, Sager discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the designated period is included in the scheduling configuration data (see Sager, column 16, lines 24-26, wherein long-range staff planning engine 200 sets general configuration options for the number of weeks in the planning horizon and the identity of shift strategies).
Sager et al. fails to explicitly wherein the designated period is a break period governed by labor law data included in the scheduling configuration data.
Analogous art Ramakrishnan discloses wherein the designated period is a break period included in the scheduling configuration data (see Ramakrishnan, para [0003], wherein may also consider including break periods, such as for meals ( e.g., lunch)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ramakrishnan would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Sager et al. and Ramakrishnan et al. combined fail to explicitly wherein the designated period is a break period governed by labor law data included in the scheduling configuration data.
Analogous art deSilva discloses wherein the designated period is a break period governed by labor law data included in the scheduling configuration data (see deSilva, para [0033], wherein staff hired profiles may include, for instance, a service date or other indication of seniority, a designation of employee status as a full or part-time worker, and/or a skills classification. A demand profile would be, for example, the quantity of each skills classification required per shift. Scheduling guidelines may include a permission relating to granted time off, federal and state labor laws, contractual obligations, labor costs, or other information. History refers to shifts worked by, or scheduled for, resources over one or more time periods preceding the planning horizon).
Sager directed to a system for determining working times and job assignments of the one or more employees. deSilva directed to preference scheduling of staffing resources. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Sager, regarding the System for Schedule Optimization for Long-Range Staff Planning, to have included designated period is a break period governed by labor law data included in the scheduling configuration data because both inventions teach enhance schedule staffing resources. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, 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 the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US Pub No. 2014/0324499).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAFIZ A KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8534. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/HAFIZ A KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 08/31/2026
Prosecution Insights