DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 5/26/2026. Claims 15 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-14, 18 and 19 have been canceled. Claims 15-17 and 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 .
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Additionally, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “the method comprising, comprising:”, which is grammatically incorrect. 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 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, method claims 15-17 and 20 are directed to a series of steps. Thus the claims are directed to process.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite workforce scheduling, including identifying, filtering, providing, detecting, receiving, calculating, publishing, and posting steps.
The limitations of identifying, filtering, providing, detecting, receiving, calculating, publishing, and posting, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite identifying a plurality of operational readiness data and a plurality of policies data for a workforce of missileers; filtering the plurality of operational readiness data and the plurality of policy data to define a ready workforce of missileers; providing a first user interface to a commanding officer; providing a second user interface to a missileer; detecting a selection of a date range for scheduling the ready workforce of missileers; receiving at least one priority constraint comprising a weighting factor of goal decision variables from the commanding officer; receiving at least one time off request scheduling preference from a missileer; calculating a work schedule for the ready workforce of missileers during the date range; publishing the work schedule; and posting missileers in the 24/7 launch control center according to the work schedule with 24/7 operational readiness.
That is, other than reciting an iterative computer model, the claim limitations merely cover managing personal behavior and interactions between people, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include an iterative computer model. The iterative computer model in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of an iterative computer model amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 16 and 17 further describe the operational readiness data. Claim 20 further describes the plurality of policy data. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, an iterative computer model.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 0031 of the specification, “The computing architecture 300 can comprise a computing system that includes a processing subsystem 302 having one or more processor(s) 304 and a system memory 306 communicating via an interconnection path that may include a memory storage 308.RAM 310 and a cache 312 can be coupled to memory storage 308 and may be a separate component within memory storage 308, part of a chipset component 314 or may be integrated within the one or more processor(s) 304. The memory storage 308 couples with the processor(s) 304 and I/O interfaces 316 via a communication link 318. The I/O interfaces 316 can enable the computing system 302 to receive input from one or more external devices 320. Additionally, the I/O interfaces 316 can enable a display 322 controlled by a display controller, which may be included in the one or more processor(s) 302, to provide outputs to one or more other display device(s).”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed 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. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
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.
Claims 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 20200334602 A1), in view of Jiménez-Martín et al (A Variation of the ATC Work Shift Scheduling Problem to Deal with Incidents at Airport Control Centers), in further view of Martin et al (US 20200349494 A1).
As per claim 15, Anderson discloses a computer implemented method comprising:
identifying a plurality of operational readiness data and a plurality of policy data for a workforce of missileers (i.e., The user 102 additionally generates profile data 130, availability data 132 and job/organization bindings 134, ¶ 0039. The multilateral scheduling system 112 receives the profile data 130, availability data 132 and binding data 134, ¶ 0046);
filtering the plurality of operational readiness data and the plurality of policy data to define a ready workforce of missileers (i.e., profile data is accessed by the scheduling system 112 from the profile data database 118. Similarly, the availability data may be stored in with the calendar data of database 116 or with the profile data 130, whereby the user 102 can verify the availability data for a particular scheduling period, ¶ 0044);
providing a first user interface to a commanding officer (i.e., multilateral scheduling system 112 provides resource availability data 140 to the manager 108, for display on the computing device 120, ¶ 0054);
providing a second user interface to a missileer (i.e., The schedule data 136 is then made available to the user 102 via the interface on the device 104, such as one embodiment being embedding the schedule data into a calendar application running on the device 104, ¶ 0047);
detecting a selection of a date range for scheduling the ready workforce of missileers (i.e., Similarly, the availability data may be stored in with the calendar data of database 116 or with the profile data 130, whereby the user 102 can verify the availability data for a particular scheduling period, ¶ 0044); and
calculating, by applying an iterative computer model, a work schedule for the ready workforce of missileers during the date range; publishing the work schedule (i.e., After scheduling operations are received, the system 112 therein generates schedule data 136. This data 136 is data indicating times in which the user 102 is to be engaged with the employer/organization, as requested by the manager. The schedule data 136 is then made available to the user 102 via the interface on the device 104, ¶ 0047, wherein the employer supervisor entity uses the computer program to activate an automatic scheduling feature which finds a solution for mapping resources to work times given a variety of constraints, ¶ 0124).
Anderson does not disclose posting missileers in the 24/7 launch control center according to the work schedule with 24/7 operational readiness.
Jiménez-Martín et al disclose reassigning the available air traffic controllers (ATCs) to the new sectorization established at the time the incident happens, but also taking into account the work done by the ATCs up to that point (abstract).
A specific sectorization has been established depending on the aircraft traffic for the considered day and the ATCs have been assigned to the open sectors. We assume that an incident arises, which involves a sectorization change and possibly less available ATCs, and that the available ATCs must be reassigned to the open sectors from that moment until the end of the shift taking into account the work done by each of them from the beginning of the shift to the instant of the incident. The problem under consideration is similar but different to the shift and break assignment problems, which are referred to in the literature with different names, such as shift design, shift scheduling, break scheduling and both process shift design and break assignment with a large number of breaks (pages 2-3).
A further optimization process is applied to the resulting optimal number of ATCs to balance ATC workloads. There are no constraints on ATC distribution across sectors in this simplified workshift scheduling problem, which accounts for a 24-h period in a core with just one sector (page 3).
Additionally, Anderson fails to disclose receiving at least one priority constraint comprising a weighting factor of goal decision variables from the commanding officer; and receiving at least one time off request scheduling preference from a missileer.
Martin et al disclose at supervisor 102 may view the recommendations through one or more portals and interfaces of workforce management server 120. Supervisor 102 may approve or reject the recommendations and rules. If rejected, new rules may be determined by adjusting weights of particular values, revising the gamified survey automatically to retest particular preferences of agents, and revising the rule values for the scoring algorithm based on feedback from supervisor 102. If accepted (and/or after revising scheduling based on rejected rules and recommendations), flowchart 300 proceeds to step 320, where workforce management server 120 assigns schedules to agents based on the recommendations and rules agreed upon by supervisor 102 (¶ 0043).
At step 302 of flowchart 300, supervisor 102 begins the process by entering survey questions, which may include survey parameters or queries associated with scheduling work time and other workforce scheduling preferences for employees at an organization. In other embodiments, other types of survey questions may be entered that are associated with preferences or parameters of a workforce of a company, such as vacation preferences, work or assignment requirements, benefits and compensation, client workload and/or assignment, work location preferences, or other query that may assist with provided scheduling, assignments, and/or workforce management to the agents, employees, and management of the organization (¶ 0027).
Anderson, Jiménez-Martín et al, and Martin et al are concerned with effective workforce management and scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include posting missileers in the 24/7 launch control center according to the work schedule with 24/7 operational readiness; receiving at least one priority constraint comprising a weighting factor of goal decision variables from the commanding officer; and receiving at least one time off request scheduling preference from a missileer in Anderson, as seen in Jiménez-Martín et al and Martin et al, respectively, since 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.
As per claim 16, Anderson discloses the operational readiness data comprises, personnel duties, roles, qualifications, availability, and personal schedule preferences (i.e., the profile data 130 is data representing profile information of the user 108. By way of example, but not limiting in nature, the profile data may include contact information, educational qualifications, work history, current job information, salary information, friends and connections information, and aspirational employment information, ¶ 0040).
As per claim 17, Anderson discloses the operational readiness data comprises current status of training and qualifications, maintenance, supply and logistics, personnel and work experience, medical readiness, travel, and availability (i.e., the profile data 130 is data representing profile information of the user 108. By way of example, but not limiting in nature, the profile data may include contact information, educational qualifications, work history, current job information, salary information, friends and connections information, and aspirational employment information, ¶ 0040. The profile data in the database 118 may include job qualification information including work experience information, educational background, job training and functions, references, among other information, ¶ 0102).
As per claim 20, Anderson discloses the plurality of policy data include at least one hard constraint that cannot be violated in calculating the work schedule (i.e., The resource user uses the computer program to set constraints per each entity that they are bound to, ¶ 0112).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant argues amended claim 15 recites that the claimed weighting factor is goal decision variables. Anderson does not teach the claimed weighting factor of goal decision variables. Anderson only teaches weights for employee ratings. One of skill reading Anderson would weigh employee ratings and not weigh the claimed goal decision variables.
The specifically claimed method of posting missileers at a 24/7 launch control center is not taught or suggested by Anderson. Furthermore, the limitation of cancelled claim 19, that the scheduling preference from the missileer is a time off request, is respectfully incorporated in to claim 15. Anderson does not teach that a time off request may be one of the scheduling preferences. As cited in the Office Action, p. 10, Anderson merely teaches using hard, go/no data for when the user is unavailable or unavailable. Anderson does teach using preferential data, but only for the type of availability [cashier vs waiting tables, etc.]. Anderson does not go the next step, as now recited in claim 15, to ask the question of claim 15 - whether or not the worker even wants to be available.
As discussed in the updated rejection, Anderson, in view of Jiménez-Martín et al, in further view of Martin et al indeed disclose Applicant’s amended claim language. Additionally, as described in paragraph 0013 of the specification, “In an embodiment, the workers can be missileers and the manager can be a commanding officer, such as a squadron commander.” Following, the workers and managers described in Anderson, in view of Jiménez-Martín et al, in further view of Martin et al disclose Applicant’s amended claim language.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues under Alice Step 1, the claims is to a recognized and statutorily eligible category. The eligibility of a method of posting missileers in a 24/7 launch control center is self evident. The claims are eligible without more.
Assuming arguendo that Alice Step 2A, is appropriate, instant claim 15 is not directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not recite, much less track, organizing human activity. For example, instant claim 15 is analogous to the claim reciting "a method of rearranging icons on a graphical user interface ...," both of which are not abstract and eligible. MPEP 2106.04(a)(1)vi.
For clarification, instant claim 15 reciting publishing a schedule/posting missileers according to that schedule requires arrangement and publishing - the same type of limitations as the non-abstract method of rearranging icons on a [viewable] graphical user interface found to be not abstract and eligible in MPEP 2106.04(a)(1)vi. The instant claims also parallel the claims to transcribing speech found by the PTAB to not be abstract, despite the necessity of manipulating data and generating information steps. Ex parte Hannun, Appeal 2018-003323 (PTAB 2019)(Informative). The instant claims likewise manipulate data from the commanding officer and missileer. Information is generated to provide the 24/7 schedule. The instant claims are not abstract under the very reasoning approved by the PTAB in Hannun. The instant claims are further eligible under Alice Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Alice Step 2A, Prong 2, even if instant claim 15 was directed to an abstract idea, the claim add elements to integrate the claimed process into the practical application of scheduling "a military workforce in which personnel and assets may be distributed geographically to an extent that makes manual operation of similar systems and methods infeasible," as disclosed in the instant specification. P. 0009. Scheduling a workforce is a ubiquitous requisite to modern life. Scheduling a workforce dates back hundreds of years, But the claimed 24/7 scheduling is more complicated, i.e., there is no downtime as occurs with Anderson's dinner services P. 0041. Basic scheduling - much less scheduling for a 24/7 military operation - is a practical application and meets Alice Revised Step 2A, Prong 2. But instant claim 15 goes even further. Claim 15 recites the practical result of publishing the 24/7 schedule. Claim 15 goes even further recites posting missileers in the 24/7 launch control center. Few things in life can be more of a practical application than this step of defending national security.
Even if the claims, somehow, recited an abstract idea, such recitation is not fatal to eligibility. As held by the PTAB, "although independent claim 1 may recite an abstract idea, it is not directed to an abstract idea. Instead, we determine that independent claim 1, when considered as a whole, integrates an abstract idea into a practical application." Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 (PTAB 2025) (reversing the rejection under 35 USC 101).” The instant claims are further eligible under Alice Step 2A, Prong 2.
Under Alice Step 2B, the instant claims recite significantly more than the [nonexistent] judicial exception. Particularly, claim 15 recites posting missileers in the 24/7 launch control center. One of skill understands that scheduling and posting missileers for military operations specifically "impacts public safety and military readiness." Instant P. 0011. The instant claims do not recite simple, low-impact scheduling contemplated by Anderson. The consequence of improper scheduling in Anderson may result in the wrong dinner being served by the person waiting tables, Anderson P.0041. In contrast, the consequence not properly positing missileers in a 24/7 launch facility is a threat to national security. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The method claims 15-17 and 20 are directed to a series of steps. Thus, the claims are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Regarding step 2A Prong One of the analysis, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II), a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
As recited in paragraphs 0002 and 0004 of the specification “The embodiments herein relate to technical improvements for assessing, reporting, and managing personnel availability and scheduling.” “A continuing, unaddressed need exists for systems and methods to achieve effective, timely scheduling of a workforce.” Paragraphs 0010-0011 recite “The workforce assessment and scheduling systems and methods disclosed herein provide for dynamic, timely, effective, accessible and actionable information related to workforce scheduling.” “Referring to FIG. 1 there is shown a schematic diagram of a system 100 for workforce scheduling. The system can be employed for scheduling a private workforce or a public workforce.” Additionally, the entire specification is replete with additional explanations of workforce scheduling, the inventive concept.
Similarly, claim 15 recites “…detecting a selection of a date range for scheduling the ready workforce of missileers; receiving at least one priority constraint comprising a weighting factor of goal decision variables from the commanding officer; optionally receiving at least one time off request scheduling preference from a worker missileer; calculating, by applying an iterative computer model, a work schedule for the ready workforce of missileers during the date range; publishing the work schedule; and posting missileers in the 24/7 launch control center according to the work schedule with 24/7 operational readiness.”
Moreover, as Applicant is likely aware, Applicant’s claim language is wholly unrelated to Ex parte Hannun. Hannun is directed to speech recognition systems developed using end-to-end deep learning. In Hannun, the claims recited steps of normalizing an input file, generating a jitter set of audio files, generating a set of spectrogram frames, obtaining predicted character probabilities from a trained neural network, and decoding a transcription of the input audio using the predicted character probability outputs. The PTAB also found that these steps do not recite any methods of organizing human activity.
Contrarily, here the claim limitations merely cover managing personal behavior and interactions between people (i.e., workforce scheduling), thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
As an initial point, under the Step 2A Prong Two analysis, method claims 15-17 and 20 fail to recite any computing components (e.g., computer, processor, etc.) implementing each of the method steps in the body of the claims.
Moreover, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Besides the abstract idea, the claims include an iterative computer model.
The iterative computer model in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use computer components as a tool (i.e., an iterative computer model). There is no change to the computers and/or other technology recited in the claims, thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, an iterative computer model. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Conclusion
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 ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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 (Rob) 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 August 17, 2026
