Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/966,959

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGEMENT OF TASK ASSIGNMENTS

Non-Final OA §101§102
Filed
Dec 03, 2024
Examiner
MA, KAM WAN
Art Unit
2688
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
230 granted / 370 resolved
At TC average
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
408
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.2%
-36.8% vs TC avg
§103
49.7%
+9.7% vs TC avg
§102
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
§112
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 370 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102
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 . 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea (organizing human activity and mental processes) without significantly more. Regarding claim 1, the claim(s) recite(s) “receiving a notification of a task”, “retrieving one or more dynamic attributes of a staff member”, “determining whether the staff member is available”, “determining whether the staff member is capable” and “assigning the task to the staff member”. The steps of receiving, retrieving and determining could be performed by mental processes, and assigning task is merely organizing human activity. Therefore, these limitations constitute organizing human activity and mental processes, which are recognized judicial exceptions. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); MPEP 2106.04. There are no additional elements recite in the claim; therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Regarding claims 2-6, recited limitations further define the steps retrieving and determining without reciting any additional element that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; therefore, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons set forth in rejection of claim 1. Regarding claims 7-8, the claim further recite additional elements, such as “non-volatile memory” and “a processor” besides the abstract idea similar to the steps recited in claim 1. However, these additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because: the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality and serves as a generic computing device for implementing the abstract idea; the “non-volatile memory” is a well-known device for storing machine-readable instructions”, therefore, it is no more than using well-known generic hardware as a tool to store machine-readable instructions. The courts have held that utilizing well-known and conventional tool to perform abstract tasks do not supply “significantly more”. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F. 3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (improvement to computer architecture); Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (transformation); MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amarasingham et al. (US 2015/0213206 A1). Regarding claims 1 and 7-8, Amarasingham discloses a method, a non-volatile memory and a system comprising: a processor; and a non-volatile memory communicatively coupled to the processor, the memory containing machine-readable instructions that, when loaded into the processor and executed (Figs. 1-2 & [0040-0042]: system and method stored in computer with computing device, memory and apps for executing the software), cause the processor to: receiving a notification of a task that comprises a task location (e.g. [0092]: a patient being admitted in a particular department is broadly interpreted as receiving task notification and department corresponds to task location); retrieving one or more dynamic attributes of a staff member (e.g. Abstract & [0091]: status of nurse are broadly considered as attributes of a staff member); determining whether the staff member is available (e.g. [0091, 0092]); determining whether the staff member is capable (e.g. [0095] & claim 22: best qualified and/or trained medical staff); and assigning, if the staff member has been determined to be both available and capable, the task to the staff member (e.g. Abstract & [0091-0092] & claim 22). Regarding claim 2, Amarasingham discloses determining whether the staff member is available comprises one or more of: determining whether a distance of the staff member from the task location exceeds a distance threshold; determining whether the staff member is currently assigned a Do Not Disturb (DND) status (e.g. [0091]: busy); and determining whether the staff member is currently on a break. Regarding claim 3, Amarasingham discloses the one or more dynamic attributes comprise one or more of: role; education; skills; training (e.g. claim 22); experience; and physical capability. Regarding claim 4, Amarasingham discloses the one or more dynamic attributes comprise one or more of: a distance of the staff member from the task location; a distance of another staff member from the task location; a break status of the staff member (e.g. [0091-0092]: busy or available equivalent to break status of a staff member) and a location of the staff member in a portion of a facility that requires personal protective equipment (e.g. [0091-0092]: location of nurse is monitored, and the location includes emergency and/or surgery room that required personal protective equipment, such as gloves and/or masks). Regarding claim 5, Amarasingham discloses the one or more dynamic attributes comprise one or more of: a number of active alarms assigned to the staff member that are above a sub-priority threshold (e.g. [0048, 0052, 0088]: alerts relate to patients status, missed/delayed treatment, patient’s condition is deteriorating are considered as alerts that are above a certain priority threshold); and a number of scheduled tasks assigned to the staff member in a current time period. Regarding claim 6, Amarasingham discloses the one or more dynamic attributes comprise one or more of: a number of patients assigned to the staff member that have a patient health assessment score above an acuity threshold; and an aggregate patient health assessment score of patients assigned to the staff member above an aggregate acuity threshold (e.g. Abstract & claim 1: patient risk scores, and medical staff is assigned to patients in response to patient risks). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm. 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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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. /KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 03, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603001
DETECTING A NON-MARKED PARKING SPACE FOR A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594953
DRIVER MONITOR, METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR MONITORING DRIVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583381
VEHICLE LAMP SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583617
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING ALERTS REGARDING ENGAGEMENT OF AN EMERGENCY EXIT DOOR OF AN AIRCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576294
BATTERY SAFETY MONITORING SYSTEM AND METHOD, AND ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+22.2%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 370 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month