DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The following is a NON-FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 19/025,314. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application, and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Application 19/025,314 filed 01/16/2025 is a Continuation of Application 17/578,354, filed 01/18/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 01/16/2025 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors.
Paragraph [0001] of the Specification reads “The present application is a continuation of, and claims priority to pending U.S. Application No. 117/578,354, filed on January 18, 2022. The entire disclosure of the application noted above is hereby expressly incorporated herein by reference.” The application number is incorrect. Paragraph [0001] should read “The present application is a continuation of, and claims priority to pending U.S. Application No. 17/578,354, filed on January 18, 2022. The entire disclosure of the application noted above is hereby expressly incorporated herein by reference.” Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
6. The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of Patent No. US 12,210,989 B2 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is obvious in view of claim 1 in the listed patent. Claim 1 of the instant application recites “A computer-implemented method for reconfiguring a workforce management (WFM) host using visualization application programming interface (API) tags, the computer-implemented method comprising: transmitting, from the WFM host to a client computing device via a visualization API, a first visualization API tag associated with a first timetable record and representing an association between a primary task type and an employee associated with a first filled task assignment field of a plurality of filled task assignment fields; receiving, at the WFM host from the client computing device via the visualization API, a second visualization API tag associated with a revised timetable record and representing an association of a secondary task type and the employee, wherein the revised timetable record comprises the plurality of filled task assignment fields revised at the client computing device to remove excess fulfillment of a workload volume of the primary task type across a plurality of timespans by modifying a second filled task assignment field of the plurality of filled task assignment fields representing the primary task type to represent the secondary task type; and in response to receiving the second visualization API tag, reconfiguring, at the WFM host, a second timetable record using the second visualization API tag to cause the second timetable record to include the second filled task assignment field of the plurality of filled task assignment fields representing the secondary task type.” Claim 1 of the ‘989 patent recites “A method, comprising: receiving, at a client computing device via a visualization application programming interface (API), and from a workforce management (WFM) host running a WFM service, a first plurality of visualization API tags associated with a first plurality of timetable records exported from the WFM service, wherein individual tags of the first plurality of visualization API tags represent an association between a task type and an employee associated with a first filled task assignment field of a plurality of filled task assignment fields; generating, at the client computing device and based on the first plurality of visualization API tags, a first summary of the first plurality of timetable records; generating, at the client computing device, using the first plurality of visualization API tags, a first visualization of the first summary; modifying, at the client computing device, the first filled task assignment field representing a secondary task type to represent a primary task type to overfill task assignments of the primary task type relative to workload volume of the primary task type at a plurality of timespans; determining, at the client computing device, a timetable record of the first plurality of timetable records having a greatest total amount of unfilled time; generating, at the client computing device, a revised timetable record by revising, non-iteratively for a referent employee associated with the timetable record, the plurality of filled task assignment fields to remove excess fulfillment of the workload volume of the primary task type across the plurality of timespans by modifying a second filled task assignment field of the plurality of filled task assignment fields representing the primary task type to represent the secondary task type; determining, at the client computing device, a second plurality of visualization API tags associated with a second plurality of timetable records comprising the revised timetable record, wherein a tag of the second plurality of visualization API tags represents an association of the secondary task type and the referent employee; generating, at the client computing device, a second summary of the second plurality of timetable records based on the second plurality of visualization API tags; generating, at the client computing device, using the second plurality of visualization API tags, a second visualization of the second summary; and transmitting, from the client computing device, the revised timetable record to the WFM host via an API causing a reconfiguration of the WFM host based on the second plurality of visualization API tags.” Claim 1 of the ‘989 patent recites a method comprising receiving a plurality of visualization API tags at a client device, generating summaries and visualizations, modifying task assignments to overfill primary task types, determining the timetable records with the greatest unfilled time, generating revised timetable records for a referent employee, transmitting the revised time table record toa WFM host via an API causing reconfiguration of the host. Claim 1 of the instant application recites a method comprising transmitting a first visualization API tag from the WFM host, receiving a second visualization API tag at the WFM host, reconfiguring a second timetable record at the WFM host based on the received tag. Claim 1 of the instant application recites the host side operations that are necessary to perform the method of claim of the ’989 patent. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to claim the corresponding server side implementation once the client-server interaction of the parent method (‘989 patent) is disclosed, because the host must necessarily transmit, receive, and reconfigure to implement the parent method. Therefore, the subject matter of claims 1 of the instant application does not define a patentably distinction invention over claim 1 of the ‘989 patent. Accordingly, claim 1 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 1 of the ‘989 patent and is therefore rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting.
Claims of instant application (as filed on 07/08/2025)
Claims of U.S. Pat. 12,210,989 B2
(issued on 01/28/2025)
1
1
2
2
3
2
4
3
5
4-6
6
7
7-12
8
8-9
9
10
10
11-12
11-13
12
14
14
1
20
8-14
The chart above maps claims of the instant application to corresponding claims of U.S. Patent 12,210,989 B2 that are patentably indistinct, though not identical. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the slight differences between the claim language of the corresponding claims as being directed towards intention, slight variations in terminology, or obvious variants of claim elements and therefore these claims are not patentably distinct from one another despite these slight differences.
Claim Interpretation
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
9. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for transmitting,” “means for receiving,” and “means for reconfiguring” in claim 20.
The claim limitations “means for transmitting,” “means for receiving,” and “means for reconfiguring” invoke 112(f). Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
11. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 recites “means for transmitting,” “means for receiving,” and “means for reconfiguring.” These limitations invoke an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of transmitting a first visualization API tag associated with a first timetable record and representing an association between a primary task type and an employee associated with a first filled task assignment field of a plurality of filled task assignment fields, receiving a second visualization API tag associated with a revised timetable record associated with a referent employee and representing an association of a secondary task type and the employee, and reconfiguring a second timetable record. No association between the structure and the functions performed by the “means for transmitting,” “means for receiving,” and “means for reconfiguring” can be found in the Specification. The Specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieved the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
All claims dependent from above rejected claims are also rejected due to dependency.
12. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
13. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
14. Claim 20 recites limitations “means for transmitting,” “means for receiving,” and “means for reconfiguring” invoke an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions No association between the structure and the functions can be found in the Specification. Consequently, it is not clear which structure and equivalents may be read into each of these limitations. The Specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed functions of transmitting a first visualization API tag associated with a first timetable record and representing an association between a primary task type and an employee associated with a first filled task assignment field of a plurality of filled task assignment fields, receiving a second visualization API tag associated with a revised timetable record associated with a referent employee and representing an association of a secondary task type and the employee, and reconfiguring a second timetable record. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
15. 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.
16. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
17. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-6), system, (claims 7-13), one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (claims 14-19), and system (claim 20) are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, article of manufacture, and machine, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-20 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping set forth in the MPEP 2106 because the claims recite steps for managing scheduling activities, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions). With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: transmitting, from the WFM host to a client computing device via a visualization API, a first visualization API tag associated with a first timetable record and representing an association between a primary task type and an employee associated with a first filled task assignment field of a plurality of filled task assignment fields; receiving, at the WFM host from the client computing device via the visualization API, a second visualization API tag associated with a revised timetable record and representing an association of a secondary task type and the employee, wherein the revised timetable record comprises the plurality of filled task assignment fields revised at the client computing device to remove excess fulfillment of a workload volume of the primary task type across a plurality of timespans by modifying a second filled task assignment field of the plurality of filled task assignment fields representing the primary task type to represent the secondary task type; and in response to receiving the second visualization API tag, reconfiguring, at the WFM host, a second timetable record using the second visualization API tag to cause the second timetable record to include the second filled task assignment field of the plurality of filled task assignment fields representing the secondary task type. These steps describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., social activities, following rules or instructions) and is part of the abstract idea falling under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.” The claim falls under certain methods of organizing human activity because it recites limitations related to managing workforce task assignment, specifically, modifying employee task allocation to balance workload.
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the Certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping of MPEP 2106, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry. Independent claims 7, 14, and 20 recite similar limitations as those recited in claim 1 and therefore are found to recite the same abstract idea(s) as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. With respect to the independent claims, the additional elements are: visualization application programming interface (API) tags, the WFM host, a client computing device, a visualization API, a first visualization API tag, and a second visualization API tag as (claim 1), one or more processors, non-transitory computer memory storing instructions, a workforce management (WFM) host using visualization application programming interface (API) tags, a client computing device, a visualization API, first visualization API tag, and a second visualization API tag (claim 7), one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, a workforce management (WFM) host using visualization application programming interface (API) tags, one or more processors, a client computing device, a visualization API, a first visualization API tag, and a second visualization API tag (claim 14), means for transmitting, the WFM host, a client computing device, a visualization API, a first visualization API tag, means for receiving, a second visualization API tag, and means for reconfiguring (claim 20). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the transmitting and receiving steps are not deemed part of the abstract idea, these steps are at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to the independent claims, the additional elements are: visualization application programming interface (API) tags, the WFM host, a client computing device, a visualization API, a first visualization API tag, and a second visualization API tag as (claim 1), one or more processors, non-transitory computer memory storing instructions, a workforce management (WFM) host using visualization application programming interface (API) tags, a client computing device, a visualization API, first visualization API tag, and a second visualization API tag (claim 7), one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, a workforce management (WFM) host using visualization application programming interface (API) tags, one or more processors, a client computing device, a visualization API, a first visualization API tag, and a second visualization API tag (claim 14), means for transmitting, the WFM host, a client computing device, a visualization API, a first visualization API tag, means for receiving, a second visualization API tag, and means for reconfiguring (claim 20). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification describes that generic computer devices that may be used to implement the invention, which cover virtually any computing device under the sun (Specification at paragraph [0152]). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.).
Even if the transmitting and receiving steps are not deemed part of the abstract idea, these steps are at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-13, and 15-19 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above. In particular, dependent claims 2-6 and 13 recite “wherein modifying the second filled task assignment field of the plurality of filled task assignment fields representing the primary task type to represent the secondary task type comprises overfilling task assignments of the primary task type relative to workload volume of the primary task type at the plurality of timespans,” “wherein overfilling the task assignments of the primary task type comprises provisionally revising the plurality of filled task assignment fields representing the secondary task type to represent the primary task type,” “further comprising transmitting a capability record for use in one or more conflict resolution operations,” “further comprising transmitting an organizational practice record limiting revising, a the plurality of filled task assignment fields,” “further comprising tagging one or more fields of the second timetable record based at least in part on a data schema associated with an import document format,” “wherein the operations further comprise filling a second filled task assignment field of the plurality of filled task assignment fields, wherein the first filled task assignment field and the second filled task assignment field temporally overlap,” however these limitations cover organizing human activity since they flow directly from the scheduling activities involving human interaction, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions), which is part of the same abstract idea as addressed in the independent claims that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping. Accordingly, these steps are part of the same abstract idea(s) set forth in the independent claims. Dependent claims 8-12 and 15-19 have been evaluated as well, however similar to claims 2-6 and 13, these claims also set forth steps falling within the same Certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping recited in the independent claims. The additional elements recited in the dependent claims include: the client computing device. However, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, these additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. The factual inquiries 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.
21. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
22. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 11, 13-14, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krucek et al., Pub. No.: US 2021/0201246 A1, [hereinafter Krucek], in view of deSilva et al., Pub. No.: US 2005/0004828 A1, [hereinafter deSilva], in further view of Chaganti et al., Pub. No.: US 2019/0189024 A1, [hereinafter Chaganti].
As per claim 1, Krucek teaches a computer-implemented method for reconfiguring a workforce management (WFM) host using visualization application programming interface (API) tags, the computer-implemented method comprising:
transmitting, from the WFM host to a client computing device, a first tag associated with a first timetable record and representing an association between a primary task type and an employee associated with a first filled task assignment field of a plurality of filled task assignment fields (paragraph 0025, discussing that the schedule for a contact center may have been generated based on the forecast and may cover the same intervals as the forecast. The schedule may associate agents with each interval or may associate agents to particular queues for each interval. The schedule may similarly be received from, and generated by, the WFM application; paragraph 0036, discussing that each notification sent to an agent may include identifiers of one or more tasks that the agent could complete during the slack period…; paragraph 0050, discussing that the schedule may be associated with the contact center, particular queues, or even agent skill sets; paragraph 0068, discussing that a schedule is received. The schedule may be received by the notification engine from the WFM application [transmitting a first timetable record]. The schedule may assign agents to the plurality of intervals; paragraph 0020);
receiving, at the WFM host from the client computing device, a second tag associated with a revised timetable record and representing an association of a secondary task type and the employee (paragraph 0016, discussing that the agents may be assigned to one or more queues. The agents assigned to a queue may handle communications that are placed in the queue by the contact center. For example, there may be queues associated with a language (e.g., English or Chinese), topic (e.g., technical support or billing), or a particular country of origin. When a communication is received by the contact center, the communication may be placed in a relevant queue, and one of the agents associated with the relevant queue may handle the communication; paragraph 0018, discussing that the slack engine is configured to predict or detect what are referred to herein as slack periods for the contact center. A slack period is one or more intervals of time where the number of agents assigned to work for the contact center, or on a particular queue, exceeds the number of agents that are needed to meet one or more service level goals for the contact center or queue; paragraph 0026, discussing that the slack predictor 220 may determine or more forecast slack periods using the forecast and the schedule. In particular, the slack predictor may determine intervals of the plurality of intervals where the number of agents assigned to the interval for a queue exceed the number of agents needed to meet the service level goals associated with the queue based on the amount of work for the interval predicted by the forecast. Alternatively, or additionally, instead of determining slack periods per queue per interval, the slack predictor may determine skill periods per agent group, per contact center, or per set of agent skills; paragraph 0031, discussing that after detecting a slack period, the slack predictor may send a request to the administrator asking the administrator to either confirm or reject the slack period. For example, the slack predictor may send the administrator an email with links that the administrator 290 can use to confirm or reject the slack period…If the administrator approves the slack period they may provide a confirmation to the slack predictor; paragraph 0032, discussing increasing the number of overstaffed agents to 6 from 5).
Krucek does not explicitly teach transmitting, from the WFM host to a client computing device via a visualization API, a first visualization API tag associated with a first timetable record; receiving, from the client computing device via the visualization API, a second visualization API tag associated with a revised timetable record, wherein the revised timetable record comprises the plurality of filled task assignment fields revised at the client computing device to remove excess fulfillment of a workload volume of the primary task type across a plurality of timespans by modifying a second filled task assignment field of the plurality of filled task assignment fields representing the primary task type to represent the secondary task type; and in response to receiving the second visualization API tag, reconfiguring, at the WFM host, a second timetable record using the second visualization API tag to cause the second timetable record to include the second filled task assignment field of the plurality of filled task assignment fields representing the secondary task type. deSilva in the analogous art of scheduling systems teaches:
wherein the revised timetable record comprises the plurality of filled task assignment fields revised at the client computing device to remove excess fulfillment of a workload volume of the primary task type across a plurality of timespans by modifying a second filled task assignment field of the plurality of filled task assignment fields representing the primary task type to represent the secondary task type (paragraph 0006, discussing a system and method for scheduling resources; paragraph 0056, discussing that the optimization process can first solve the demand problem for a higher skill classification, and identify instances of overcapacity in the higher skill classification. Then, prior to solving the demand problem for a lower skill classification, optimization process may substitute higher skilled workers to meet the demand for lower skilled workers, to the extent of the overcapacity of higher skilled workers. In the alternative, the demand problem can be solved simultaneously, by generating alternative schedules for higher skilled worker to cover for demand for lower skilled workers. In this latter case, the demand for a given shift may be specified in terms of upper and lower quantitative limits for each skill type, allowing for a broader range of possible solutions; paragraph 0072, discussing that when the process advances to derive an optimal allocation of the available work force for the daily scheduling time horizon. For a given unit reviewing a given shift(s), staffing alternatives to cover a supply shortage might include, for example, borrowing excess staff from another unit, assigning overtime, or bringing in temporary workers; paragraph 0073, discussing that the process advances to update the unit schedules; paragraph 0097, discussing that the staff resources available for scheduling shifts needs to be updated. These updates may include the modification of staff profiles and rules to better match changing operating requirements, the addition of staff to reduce understaffing, and/or the reduction of staff to reduce overstaffing); and
in response to receiving the second visualization tag, reconfiguring, at the WFM host, a second timetable record using the second visualization tag to cause the second timetable record to include the second filled task assignment field of the plurality of filled task assignment fields representing the secondary task type (paragraph 0038, discussing a mechanism for managers, supervisors, or other administrators to make adjustments in the schedule for one or more shifts where, for example, circumstances have changed in the demand for resources, or available supply of resources, on one or more shifts. Step 130 may receive the unit schedules; paragraph 0055, discussing that alternative schedules are generated by starting with the initial schedule, and making incremental substitutions or other changes to the initial schedule; paragraph 0056, discussing that the optimization process can first solve the demand problem for a higher skill classification, and identify instances of overcapacity in the higher skill classification. Then, prior to solving the demand problem for a lower skill classification, optimization process may substitute higher skilled workers to meet the demand for lower skilled workers, to the extent of the overcapacity of higher skilled workers. In the alternative, the demand problem can be solved simultaneously, by generating alternative schedules for higher skilled worker to cover for demand for lower skilled workers. In this latter case, the demand for a given shift may be specified in terms of upper and lower quantitative limits for each skill type, allowing for a broader range of possible solutions; paragraph 0072, discussing that when the process advances to derive an optimal allocation of the available work force for the daily scheduling time horizon. For a given unit reviewing a given shift(s), staffing alternatives to cover a supply shortage might include, for example, borrowing excess staff from another unit, assigning overtime, or bringing in temporary workers; paragraph 0073, discussing that where staffing adjustments are accepted, the process advances to update the unit schedules; paragraph 0097, discussing that the staff resources available for scheduling shifts needs to be updated. These updates may include the modification of staff profiles and rules to better match changing operating requirements, the addition of staff to reduce understaffing, and/or the reduction of staff to reduce overstaffing).
Krucek is directed towards systems and methods for workforce management. deSilva is directed towards a system and method for preference scheduling of staffing resources. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for scheduling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Krucek-Koski combination with deSilva because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for workforce management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (workforce management), and because modifying Krucek-Koski combination to include deSilva’s features for wherein the revised timetable record comprises the plurality of filled task assignment fields revised at the client computing device to remove excess fulfillment of a workload volume of the primary task type across a plurality of timespans by modifying a second filled task assignment field of the plurality of filled task assignment fields representing the primary task type to represent the secondary task type, and in response to receiving the second visualization API tag, reconfiguring, at the WFM host, a second timetable record using the second visualization API tag to cause the second timetable record to include the second filled task assignment field of the plurality of filled task assignment fields representing the secondary task type, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing an improved ability to schedule staffing resources (deSilva at paragraph 0001); and further obvious because 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.
The Krucek-de Silva combination does not explicitly teach transmitting, from the WFM host to a client computing device via a visualization API, a first visualization API tag associated with a first timetable record; receiving, from the client computing device via the visualization API, a second visualization API tag associated with a revised timetable record; and in response to receiving the second visualization API tag, reconfiguring, at the WFM host, a second timetable record using the second visualization API tag. However, Chaganti in the analogous art of task management systems teaches these concepts. Chaganti teaches:
transmitting, from the WFM host to a client computing device via a visualization API, a first visualization API tag associated with a first timetable record (paragraph 0020, discussing that the method includes receiving a task request including a task description and a virtual point value, and storing a task record in a database based on the task request; paragraph 0033, discussing that the TM (task management) computing device is configured to receive a portal view request from a household member computing device, including a household member identifier. In some embodiments, the view request includes an API call such as a HTTP request. In one embodiment, the view request includes a HTTP request from a web browser associated with a household member computing device. In another embodiment, the view request includes an API call from a smartphone (e.g., household member computing device); paragraph 0057, discussing that the task management computing device includes a database server configured to operate database 160. In one embodiment, database 160 stores a task table and a household member table, and responds to queries received from the task management computing device and/or database server 153. For example, the TM computing device may retrieve task records associated with a household member by querying the database with a household member identifier. Database queries include SQL queries, API calls, and the like; paragraph 0064, discussing that the view request may be transmitted by an API call);
receiving, from the client computing device via the visualization API, a second visualization API tag associated with a revised timetable record (paragraph 0005, discussing that the task management computing device is also configured to update the associated task record based on the task update, and store the updated household member profile and the updated task record in the database; paragraph 0029, discussing that the TM computing device is configured to receive a task update, associated with a task specification… In one embodiment, the task update includes a task identifier…the TM computing device is configured to receive task updates including replacement date identifiers, such that the cardholder can update task records; paragraph 0057, discussing that the task management computing device 150 includes a database server 150 configured to operate database 160. In one embodiment, Database 160 stores a task table and a household member table, and responds to queries received from task management computing device 150 and/or database server 153. For example, the TM computing device may retrieve task records associated with a household member by querying the database with a household member identifier. Database queries include SQL queries, API calls, and the like; paragraph 0058, discussing that the task management computing device 150 is connected to network 140...Additionally or alternatively, network 140 may be a virtual network accessible over the internet. Network 140 includes cardholder computing device 170 and household member computing device 180. In certain embodiments, TM computing device 150 is configured to transmit notifications to user devices, such as SMS messages, emails, and the like…The TM computing device is further configured to receive view requests, and transmit view responses to user devices, such as JSON responses to API calls, and HTTP responses including HTML webpages); and
in response to receiving the second visualization API tag, reconfiguring, at the WFM host, a second timetable record using the second visualization API tag (paragraph 0006, discussing that the method includes receiving a task request including a task description and storing a task record in a database based on the task request. The method further includes receiving a task update, and updating a household member profile stored in the database based on the task update; paragraph 0016, discussing that the task update is associated with a task, and includes a flag to mark the associated task; paragraph 0035, discussing that the TM computing device makes a HTTP API call to the RF computing device, such that the RF computing device responds with an XML file; paragraph 0063, discussing that the TM computing device is configured to store updated task profile data 240 in database 160, based on the task update 230. For example, TM computing device 150 may generate a SQL query including a task identifier, and a flag to mark the task as completed; paragraph 0068).
The Krucek-deSilva combination describes features related to is directed workforce planning. Chaganti directed towards a system for task assignment. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for task assignment 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 combine the Krucek-deSilva combination with Chaganti because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for task management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (workforce management), and because modifying Krucek-deSilva combination to include Chaganti’s features for transmitting, from the WFM host to a client computing device via a visualization API, a first visualization API tag associated with a first timetable record, receiving, at the WFM host from the client computing device via the visualization API, a second visualization API tag associated with a revised timetable record, and in response to receiving the second visualization API tag, reconfiguring, at the WFM host, a second timetable record using the second visualization API tag, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of increasing efficiency and productivity (Chaganti at paragraph 0003); and further obvious because 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 2, the Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Krucek further teaches wherein modifying the second filled task assignment field of the plurality of filled task assignment fields representing the primary task type to represent the secondary task type comprises overfilling, at the client computing device, task assignments of the primary task type relative to workload volume of the primary task type at the plurality of timespans (paragraph 0016, discussing that the agents may be assigned to one or more queues. The agents assigned to a queue may handle communications that are placed in the queue by the contact center. For example, there may be queues associated with a language (e.g., English or Chinese), topic (e.g., technical support or billing), or a particular country of origin. When a communication is received by the contact center, the communication may be placed in a relevant queue, and one of the agents associated with the relevant queue may handle the communication; paragraph 0018, discussing that the slack engine is configured to predict or detect what are referred to herein as slack periods for the contact center. A slack period is one or more intervals of time where the number of agents assigned to work for the contact center, or on a particular queue, exceeds the number of agents that are needed to meet one or more service level goals for the contact center or queue; paragraph 0026, discussing that the slack predictor 220 may determine or more forecast slack periods using the forecast and the schedule. In particular, the slack predictor may determine intervals of the plurality of intervals where the number of agents assigned to the interval for a queue exceed the number of agents needed to meet the service level goals associated with the queue based on the amount of work for the interval predicted by the forecast. Alternatively, or additionally, instead of determining slack periods per queue per interval, the slack predictor may determine skill periods per agent group, per contact center, or per set of agent skills; paragraph 0032, discussing increasing the number of overstaffed agents to 6 from 5; paragraph 0027).
As per claim 5, the Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Krucek further teaches further comprising transmitting, from the WFM host to the client computing device, an organizational practice record limiting revising, at the client computing device, the plurality of filled task assignment fields (paragraph 0027, discussing that the slack rules may be based on criterial such as how many excess agents are required for an interval to be considered part of a slack period or what percentage of the interval is required to be overstaffed for the interval to be considered part of a slack period. Each queue may use different slack rules, and/or different slack rules may be used depending on the time of the day associated with the interval. Depending on the embodiment, the slack rules may be set by a user or administrator; paragraph 0031, discussing that the slack predictor may send the administrator an email with links that the administrator can use to confirm or reject the slack period. The request may also include information about the slack period such as its predicted length, severity, and the particular slack rules that were used to predict the slack period; paragraph 0045, discussing that the notification engine may monitor the number of agents that elect to work on a task during a slack period to ensure that the performance of the queue or contact center is not negatively affected. For example, a slack period may be associated with an excess of four agents for the period. Accordingly, once four agents have elected to perform QM tasks, the notification engine may no longer permit agents to work on a task during the slack period; paragraph 0032, discussing that if a slack rule such as “staffing is overstaffed >=5 staffing for a 30 minute period” was used to predict the slack period that received a rejection, the slack predictor 220 may make the rule more restrictive by increasing the number of overstaffed agents to 6 from 5; paragraph 0030).
Claim 7 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 1, as discussed above. Further, as per claim 7 the Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination teaches a system, comprising: one or more processors; and non-transitory computer memory storing instructions that, when executed via the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to reconfigure a workforce management (WFM) host using visualization application programming interface (API) tags (Krucek, paragraph 0086, discussing that computing device typically includes a variety of tangible computer readable media. Computer readable media can be any available tangible media that can be accessed by the computing device and includes both volatile and non-volatile media, removable and non-removable media; paragraph 0095, discussing that it should be understood that the various techniques described herein may be implemented in connection with hardware or software or, where appropriate, with a combination of both. Thus, the methods and apparatus of the presently disclosed subject matter, or certain aspects or portions thereof, may take the form of program code (i.e., instructions) embodied in tangible media, such as floppy diskettes, CD-ROMs, hard drives, or any other machine-readable storage medium wherein, when the program code is loaded into and executed by a machine, such as a computer, the machine becomes an apparatus for practicing the presently disclosed subject matter. In the case of program code execution on programmable computers, the computing device generally includes a processor, a storage medium readable by the processor (including volatile and non-volatile memory and/or storage elements), at least one input device, and at least one output device).
Claims 8 and 18 recite substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 2, as discussed above.
Claims 11 and 17 recite substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 5, as discussed above.
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 1, as discussed above. Further, as per claim 14 the Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions for reconfiguring a workforce management (WFM) host using visualization application programming interface (API) tags that, when executed via one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operation (Krucek, paragraph 0086, discussing that computing device typically includes a variety of tangible computer readable media. Computer readable media can be any available tangible media that can be accessed by the computing device and includes both volatile and non-volatile media, removable and non-removable media; paragraph 0095, discussing that it should be understood that the various techniques described herein may be implemented in connection with hardware or software or, where appropriate, with a combination of both. Thus, the methods and apparatus of the presently disclosed subject matter, or certain aspects or portions thereof, may take the form of program code (i.e., instructions) embodied in tangible media, such as floppy diskettes, CD-ROMs, hard drives, or any other machine-readable storage medium wherein, when the program code is loaded into and executed by a machine, such as a computer, the machine becomes an apparatus for practicing the presently disclosed subject matter. In the case of program code execution on programmable computers, the computing device generally includes a processor, a storage medium readable by the processor (including volatile and non-volatile memory and/or storage elements), at least one input device, and at least one output device).
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 1, as discussed above. Further, as per claim 20 the Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination teaches a system for reconfiguring a workforce management (WFM) host using visualization application programming interface (API) tags, the system comprising: means for transmitting, means for receiving, and means for reconfiguring (Krucek, paragraph 0082, discussing that numerous other general purpose or special purpose computing system environments or configurations may be used. Examples of well-known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for use include, but are not limited to, personal computers, servers, handheld or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, network personal computers (PCs), minicomputers, mainframe computers, embedded systems, distributed computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like; paragraph 0083, discussing that computer-executable instructions, such as program modules, being executed by a computer may be used. Generally, program modules include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc. that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. Distributed computing environments may be used where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network or other data transmission medium. In a distributed computing environment, program modules and other data may be located in both local and remote computer storage media including memory storage devices; paragraph 0086, discussing that computing device typically includes a variety of tangible computer readable media. Computer readable media can be any available tangible media that can be accessed by the computing device and includes both volatile and non-volatile media, removable and non-removable media; paragraph 0095, discussing that it should be understood that the various techniques described herein may be implemented in connection with hardware or software or, where appropriate, with a combination of both. Thus, the methods and apparatus of the presently disclosed subject matter, or certain aspects or portions thereof, may take the form of program code (i.e., instructions) embodied in tangible media, such as floppy diskettes, CD-ROMs, hard drives, or any other machine-readable storage medium wherein, when the program code is loaded into and executed by a machine, such as a computer, the machine becomes an apparatus for practicing the presently disclosed subject matter. In the case of program code execution on programmable computers, the computing device generally includes a processor, a storage medium readable by the processor (including volatile and non-volatile memory and/or storage elements), at least one input device, and at least one output device).
23. Claims 3, 9, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krucek in view of DeSilva, in view of Chaganti, in further view of Garber et al., Pub. No.: US 2020/0210965 A1, [hereinafter Garber].
As per claim 3, the Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2. Although not explicitly taught by the Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination, Garber in the analogous art of scheduling systems teaches wherein overfilling the task assignments of the primary task type comprises provisionally revising, at the client computing device, the plurality of filled task assignment fields representing the secondary task type to represent the primary task type (paragraph 0306, discussing that at the beginning of a day, one or more field professional may be provided a planned field professional schedule. The schedule shown includes driving times between location-specific tasks 1 and 2, tasks 1 and 2, and a location agnostic task 1. As the day proceeds, the one or more field professional completes the scheduled activities of driving and location-specific task 1. However, as shown in the observed traffic, shortly before 11:00, traffic on the route that the one or more field professional would travel to location-specific task 2 becomes unusually heavy, perhaps due to a car accident or roadway construction. If the one or more field professional continued on the previously-planned sequence of tasks, namely, starting to drive at approximately 11:10 and then completing location-specific task 2, the one or more field professional would not be able to start task 2 until 13:00 due to traffic, as shown in resulting field professional schedule. As a result, the field professional's duty day may end before being able to accomplish location-agnostic task 1. If such a situation arose, process 1300 may be used to revise the schedule of the field professional. In this case, after having completed steps 1302, 1304, and 1306, at step 1308, real-time information may be received about the location of the field professional, as well as real-time information about traffic conditions. At step 1310, based on the real-time information of the traffic delay shown in the observed traffic 1420 of FIG. 14, it may be determined that location-agnostic task 1 should be completed in the time that the field professional would be stuck in traffic. The field professional's schedule may be revised, reassigning the field professional to complete location-agnostic task 1 before starting location-specific task 2, as shown in revised filed professional schedule 1440).
The Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination describes features related to task management and workforce planning. Garber is directed towards a method and system for scheduling tasks. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for scheduling and task management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination with Garber because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for workforce management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (workforce management), and because modifying Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination to include Garber’s feature for including wherein overfilling the task assignments of the primary task type comprises provisionally revising, at the client computing device, the plurality of filled task assignment fields representing the secondary task type to represent the primary task type, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of allowing service providers to accurately managing the size, mix of skills, and allocation of their resources (Garber at paragraph 0004); and further obvious because 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.
Claims 9 and 19 recite substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 3, as discussed above.
As per claim 13, the Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination teaches the system of claim 7. Although not explicitly taught by the Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination, Garber in the analogous art of scheduling systems teaches wherein the operations further comprise filling, at the WFM host, a second filled task assignment field of the plurality of filled task assignment fields, wherein the first filled task assignment field and the second filled task assignment field temporally overlap (paragraph 0334, discussing that it may next be determined if the second proposed time is different than the first proposed time. In this step, the two proposed times may be different if they do not overlap at all, or, in alternative embodiments, they may be different if they do not overlap fully. For example, an appointment from 2:00 to 3:00 on Thursday may be considered to be different from, or the same as, an appointment from 2:30 to 3:30 on Thursday. The amount of difference required for step 1920 to be Yes may therefore vary according to the needs of users, managers, and field professionals. If step 1920 is Yes, the second proposed time may be offered to the user as an alternative proposed time. If step 1920 is no, new proposed times may be determined at step 1924. For example, if the first proposed time is 10:30 on Tuesday, and the second proposed time is 10:30 on Tuesday, and the user refuses this appointment, new proposed times may be determined. If, however, the second proposed time were 12:00 on Tuesday, this second proposed time may be offered as an alternative proposed time to the user at step 1922; paragraph 0450, discussing that the processing device may periodically receive data associated with tasks scheduled by the native scheduling engine. The term “periodically” in this context refers to the transmission of data from the remote server being performed more than once or in successive instances and does not necessarily imply regular or uniform interval. For example, the processing device may receive first data associated with tasks scheduled by the native scheduling engine during a first time period (e.g., a week), and receive second data associated with tasks scheduled by the native scheduling engine during a second time period (e.g., 10 days) subsequent the first time period. The first and the second time period may or may not overlap. In one example, the first time period and the second time period may be between one day and one hundred days. In some embodiments, a duration of the first time period may be selected such that a size of the first data is lower than a threshold associated with an ability of the at least one processor to process in stateless manner. Specifically, the threshold may be determined based on a size of a RAM memory associated with the at least one processor. For example, the size of the data received may be less than 100% of the size of the memory 3318, less than 90% of the size of the memory 3318, less than 75% of the size of the memory 3318, or less than 50% of the size of the memory 3318).
The Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination describes features related to task management and workforce planning. Garber is directed towards a method and system for scheduling tasks. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for scheduling and task management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination with Garber because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for workforce management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (workforce management), and because modifying Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination to include Garber’s feature for including wherein the operations further comprise filling, at the WFM host, a second filled task assignment field of the plurality of filled task assignment fields, wherein the first filled task assignment field and the second filled task assignment field temporally overlap, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of allowing service providers to accurately managing the size, mix of skills, and allocation of their resources (Garber at paragraph 0004); and further obvious because 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.
24. Claims 4, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krucek in view of DeSilva, in view of Chaganti, in further view of Koski et al., Patent No.: US 5,596,502, [hereinafter Koski].
As per claim 4, the Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by the Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination, Koski in the analogous art of schedule analysis systems teaches further comprising transmitting, from the WFM host to the client computing device, a capability record for use in one or more conflict resolution operations (col., 5, lines 9-18, discussing a computer system which includes software means for control of near-real time decision support scheduling using predetermined "doability" (the capability to produce Features necessary to produce a product/service) during new product design, and, in a similar fashion, at order entry, using predetermined "doability" and "availability" (the ability to make tentative appointments to muster all required resources for the necessary time period to perform the required processes at a workspace at a specified future date and time); col. 11, lines 57-59, discussing that data structures and data sets and arrays contain information as to workspace layouts, supply bin locations, resource availability, and feature capability; col. 12, lines 17-19, discussing that the secondary memory is also queried to determine if sufficient resources are available to meet the quantities desired in the demand; col. 20, lines 10-30, discussing a Negotiation Process: When the Cube System receives a Customer-Order for delivery of certain Product-Resources at a certain Time it attempts to muster available Resources at certain Workspaces to complete a Job to produce these Product-Resources in the "best" manner as defined by a scoring system which takes into account costs, customer service, and "hassle factor." With the desired output known it is possible to rank all the alternate paths to reach that output and determine the "best path."...The CubeView program shows and attempts to resolve conflict between capacity-limited resources, both within this Cube-World and between Cube-Worlds within this Cube-Universe. The program predicts problems with scarce Resources; col. 17, lines 66-67 & col. 18, lines 1-4, col. 18, lines 39-41; col. 22, lines 47-60).
The Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination describes features related to task management and workforce planning. Koski is directed towards a method and system for decision support scheduling. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for workforce planning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination with Koski because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for workforce management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (workforce management), and because modifying the Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination to include Koski’s feature for transmitting, from the WFM host to the client computing device, a capability record for use in one or more conflict resolution operations, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of minimizing time consuming iterations (Koski at col. 8, lines 48-49); and further obvious because 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.
Claims 10 and 16 recite substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 4, as discussed above.
25. Claims 6, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krucek in view of DeSilva, in view of Chaganti, in further view of Steinmann, Pub. No.: US 2009/0024639 A1, [hereinafter Steinmann].
As per claim 6, the Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by the Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination, Steinmann in the analogous art of data management systems teaches further comprising tagging one or more fields of the second timetable record based at least in part on a data schema associated with an import document format (paragraph 0006, discussing that a selection of a source file including a plurality of data records may be received, each data record comprising a sequence of data segments associated with source data. One or more target data structures comprising a plurality of target fields to which to import the source data of the source file based on a mapping format associated with the source file may be identified. The source data of the source file may be imported into the target fields of the one or more target data structures based on the mapping format, the mapping format comprising, for each of the data segments for the plurality of data records, associations between each data segment and a target field of the plurality of target fields, wherein the source data of each data segment for each data record is imported into the target field associated with the data segment; paragraph 0007, discussing that a mapping definition engine may be configured to determine a mapping format including an association between each of the data segments of the sequence and one or more of the target fields. An import engine may be configured to import the source data from the source file to the target fields of the one or more data structures based on the mapping format; paragraph 0016, discussing that the target fields may be configured or otherwise formatted to store or receive the data as determined based on a mapping format; paragraph 0017, discussing that the mapping format may include one or more relationships between the data segments and one or more of the target fields . The mapping format may include a map of which data from which data segments is to be imported into which target fields; paragraph 0036, discussing that an import engine may import the source data from the source file into one or more of the target fields of the target data structure based on the mapping format. The import engine may, for example, retrieve the source data, perform processing, if necessary, on the source data, and provide the processed source data into the target fields using the class; paragraphs 0018, 0038).
The Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination describes features related to task management and workforce planning. Steinmann is directed towards a data mapping and import system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards solutions for data management and analysis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination with Steinmann because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for task management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (workforce management), and because modifying the Krucek-deSilva-Chaganti combination to include Steinmann’s feature for tagging one or more fields of the second timetable record based at least in part on a data schema associated with an import document format, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of making it easier for the business to effectively and/or efficiently make use of data (Steinmann at paragraph 0003); and further obvious because 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.
Claims 12 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 6, as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
B. Bagheri et al., Pub. No.: US 2014/0278650 A1 – describes mobile collaborative workforce scheduling.
B. Gillen, Pub. No.: US 2018/0060829 A1 – describes concepts for maintaining updated electronic task-management records.
C. Bahramshahry et al., Pub. No.: US 2020/0026579 A1 – describes systems, methods, and apparatuses for implementing a scheduler and workload manager that identifies and consumes global virtual resources.
D. Hamilton et al., Patent No.: US 10,445,667 B2 – describes a system and method of work assignment management.
E. Lin, C. K. Y., K. F. Lai, and S. L. Hung. "Development of a workforce management system for a customer hotline service." Computers & Operations Research 27.10 (2000): 987-1004 – describes developing a roster management system with updated forecasts on call traffic.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Darlene Garcia-Guerra whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on 571- 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights