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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 21, 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 19/016,604, filed on January 10, 2025. In response to Examiner's Advisory Action dated October 28, 2025, Applicant filed an Affidavit on January 21, 2026. Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19-26 and 28-36 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on April 21, 2026 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Response to Affidavit
Applicant's Affidavit filed April 21, 2026 (hereinafter Affidavit) has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Examiner finds the Affidavit provided opinion based examples that are unsuccessful in providing a nexus between the claimed invention and the evidence. The evidence provided expounds upon the complexity and infinite possibilities of “NP-hard” problems. However, Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant, claims are evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement; MPEP 21060.04(d)(1). Examiner finds the pending claims do not reflect the alleged improvement. Specifically, the claims currently do not recite any limitations involving or replicating a NP-hard problem as described. In fact, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the scheduling variations can also be even less trivial as the 4 tasks/15 day example provided in the Affidavit.
Furthermore, in the context of subject matter eligibly under 35 U.S.C. 101, Examiner does not find the evidence to be persuasive. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant and maintains, regardless of the complexity and/or granularity, limitations directed to data analysis (i.e., generating variations of a schedule and selecting among the different characteristics for the tasks in the variations to form a revised schedule by modifying a currently planned usage of a specified resource class based on an objective function for work distribution expressed as a deviation of a current utilization of the specified resource class from an ideal usage of the specified resource class and an objective function for work distribution uses a non-uniform and discontinuous independent variable that represents clock time as a monotonically increasing, cumulative amount of available working time since a start time) without meaningful limitations within the claims that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself is a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea). Examiner finds the present claims are directed to the data analysis of generating revised schedules. Even in a computer environment, these limitations are still considered abstract by reciting limitations that mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluations, judgement and opinion, that can feasibly be performed with pen and paper, where the data interpretation is perceptible in the human mind.
Regarding the Advisory Action (see #22, pg. 5, Affidavit), Applicant states for the reasons set forth above, this statement is factually incorrect. Based upon my knowledge and experience in this field, a POSITA would immediately recognize that these claim elements describe specific computer data structures designed to solve computational efficiency problems that are very different from processes performed in the human mind. Nor could they ever be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Humans perceive time via standard linear units (minutes, hours) or calendar dates. A human scheduler does not and would never somehow mentally construct a "discontinuous independent variable" or a "cumulative amount of available working time" (a custom "timetable" clock) in order to perform tasks.
Therefore, the techniques recited in the claims do not "mimic" human evaluation or judgment whatsoever.
In response, Examiner disagrees for the reasons provided above. Furthermore, Examiner finds Applicant arguments are directed towards the data analysis of an existing business process. The discontinuous independent variable is a metric that represent a clock time (see Specification par. 0048) and the cumulative amount of available working time is a metric that quantifies time by defining a start day as the number of seconds from an epoch in a universal time clock and for each subsequent day, in the entry for the clock, (see Specification par. 0054), which can both be realistically determined by the human mind. Additionally, Examiner notes claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). Examiner finds the pending claims recite similar limitations to claims the courts have indicated may not be sufficient in showing an improvement in computer-functionality, such as mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017), A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Examiner maintains Applicants arguments do not recite improvements to a technology, technological field or computer related technology. Examiner maintains the claims are directed to a judicial exception.
Regarding the Advisory Action (see #23, pg. 6, Affidavit), Applicant states this statement is also factually incorrect. For example, the specification explains that this specific variable structure enables efficient search methods to index forward and backward in time. A POSITA would readily understand that such search algorithms are computer science techniques used to traverse data arrays and are thus not mental processes at all. The claim even requires this specific variable to allow the computer to "increment over the discontinuous and non-uniform time" without the massive computational overhead of an iterative forward search. This is a specific technological improvement to the computer's ability to process temporal data, contrary to the examiner's assertion.
In response, Examiner finds the pending claims do not reflect how these specific variables, search methods to index forward and backward in time or computer science techniques used to traverse data arrays. Examiner maintains these variables are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment.
Regarding the Advisory Action (see #24, pg. 7, Affidavit), Applicant states based on my knowledge and experience in spending decades designing software solutions to solve difficult, and in some cases intractable NP-hard, computational problems, this statement by the examiner is again factually incorrect. As explained above, in these types of problems, the computational complexity quickly explodes, even for very small problem sizes.
Therefore, the solution recited by the pending claims is absolutely an improvement to a computer-related technology.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes the technological improvement to software contemplated by Enfish. 822 F.3d at 1339. In Enfish, the claims assert improvements in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database, which achieves benefits over conventional databases). Enfish disclosed sufficient support in the specification that the claims were directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. In addition, Examiner notes in Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision), the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting”, and the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. The improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system. Such improvements were tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation. Examiner finds no similar improvement in the present claims. Applicant is describing the use of the abovementioned computational problems as a tool to improve schedule revisions without disclosing any improvement to how the computational problem functions. Examiner maintains the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding the Advisory Action (see #25, pg. 7-8, Affidavit), Applicant based on my knowledge and experience in the field of computer science and algorithmic optimization, a POSITA would fundamentally disagree with this characterization.
The quoted passage attempts to simplify the invention to "schedule management." However, the Specification very explicitly defines the problem not as one of administrative organization, but as a problem of computational complexity. Specifically, the Specification states: "due to the NP- hard (Nondeterministic Polynomial time) complexity of the problem, exhaustive or even iterative refinement search and optimization methods are generally not applicable."
And a POSITA having any computer science training would immediately understand "NP-hard" to refer to a class of problems that are computationally intractable for standard algorithms as scale increases. The data provided in the disclosure confirms that the number of possible schedule variations for the target projects is usually "astronomical." Thus, even a simple example with a few tasks can result in hundreds of variations. Moreover, at real-world scales, (e.g., 50,000 tasks), the number of permutations can quickly become a 300-digit number or larger.
Therefore, solving an NP-hard problem of this magnitude is not a "business practice" that can be performed by a human, mentally or otherwise. It is rather a specific computational challenge that requires the technological solution disclosed by the Specification and covered by the pending claims.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, Examiner finds the pending claims do not reflect the alleged improvement, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the scheduling variations can also be even less trivial as the 4 tasks/15 day example provided in the Affidavit, and regardless of the complexity and/or granularity, limitations directed to data analysis without meaningful limitations within the claims that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself is a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea). Examiner maintains, Applicant is describing the use of the abovementioned computational problems as a tool to improve schedule revisions without disclosing any improvement to how the computational problem functions. Applicant has not presented evidence to refute this analysis. For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are directed towards a method, claims 13-17, 19-21 and 34-36 are directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium and claims 22-26 and 28-33 are directed towards a system, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19-26 and 28-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite generating revised schedules.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on mental processes. Specifically, obtaining a dataset describing a schedule of one or more projects to be rescheduled, the dataset comprising a work breakdown structure of tasks to be scheduled, resource requirements, and dependencies between or among the tasks; generating variations of the schedule, wherein each of the variations of the schedule have different characteristics that determine for the tasks in the schedule when each task is scheduled in time, and each of the variations satisfy the resource requirements, and the dependencies; selecting among the different characteristics for the tasks in the variations of the schedule to form a revised schedule of the one or more projects; and providing the revised schedule of the one or more projects for display to a user or for output to manage the one or more projects; wherein the generating and the selecting form the revised schedule by modifying a currently planned usage of a specified resource class based on an objective function for work distribution expressed as a deviation of a current utilization of the specified resource class from an ideal usage of the specified resource class; and wherein the objective function for work distribution uses a non-uniform and discontinuous independent variable that represents clock time as a monotonically increasing, cumulative amount of available working time since a start time constitutes methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of a scheduling computer program does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 13 and 22 recite mental processes for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites a scheduling computer program at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The non-transitory computer-readable medium encoding a scheduling computer program operable for a data processing apparatus recited in claim 13 and system comprising non-transitory computer-readable medium encoding performable instructions by a data processing apparatus in claim 22 amounts to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements recited in claims 13 and 22 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including system, scheduling computer program, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and data processing apparatus amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); 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). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 7, 8, 33 and 36 recites presenting, receiving and showing limitations respectively, which are considered insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 6-8, 16, 17, 25, 26, 33 and 36 recites additional elements at a high-level of generality that amounts to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 3, 32 and 35 recites the generating and the selecting are performed by an evolutionary artificial intelligence algorithm. The general use of an artificial intelligence technology does not provide a meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the evolutionary artificial intelligence algorithm disclosed in the claims is solely used as a tool to perform the instructions of the abstract idea. Additionally, claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17, 19-21, 23, 24, 23-26 and 28, 31, 33, 34 and 36 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. Therefore claims 2-8, 10-12, 14-17, 19-21, 23-26 and 28-36 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Noll (US 20240320583 A1) – Described herein are examples of methods which include representing tasks within a workflow using a network of nodes, where each node includes one or more interconnected subtasks associated with their respective node and metadata. Additionally, the method may include evaluating, via a task assessment module, the interconnected subtasks based on a predetermined variable and a user input. The method may also include generating instructions for task execution based on the evaluation of the nodes and executing the instructions using a processor to determine at least one task to be performed by a user in the workflow. The method may further include providing a user interface to receive the user input and display the network of nodes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Patty Munson can be reached on (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.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights