DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/22/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 12/30/2019 is acknowledged.
Claim 2- 4, 8, 11, 13-20, and 31-32 are cancelled. Claims 1, 33, and 35 are amended. Claims 1, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 21-30, and 33-35 are considered in this Office Action. Claims 1, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 21-30, and 33-35 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
In regard to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection, applicant’s arguments have been considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the claims, as amended, recite steps that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, including with pen and paper. For example, the claims, as amended, recite "receiving, via the user interface of the subject tax professional agent, a selection to regenerate the hierarchical ordering of the plurality of designated performance metrics on the user interface. generating for display, an icon associated with the at least one designated performance metric," where receiving a selection and generating for display on a user interface cannot practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. The claims are not directed to an abstract idea for at least this reason. Second, the claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as alleged in the Office Action. This grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances. Action. This grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes providing real- time feedback is a step that can performed with the aid of a pen and paper. The examiner further notes providing real time feedback to an agent during a live performance is reasonably considered as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), as well as steps that can be performed in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), wherein the courts consider a mental process. The examiner notes the feedback can also be performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The examiner further notes that the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) provides examples of product claims reciting mental processes which include a wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid – Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1. See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element”)).
The examiner further notes that the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) provides examples of product claims reciting mental processes which include a wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid – Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1. The examiner further notes tying the abstract idea to “tax season” and “tax professional agents” do not change the thrust of the analysis. The examiner notes that limitations amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element”)).
The additional elements are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions which, when executed, cause a processor to execute a method, a tax software, generating for display, in real time within a user interface of the subject tax professional agent, an indication of the overall performance score over time during the live agent interaction (post-solution activity and amounts to outputting data), generating for display, in real time during the ongoing portion of the live agent interaction, within the user interface of the subject agent, a performance metric list comprising the plurality of designated performance metrics, wherein the plurality of designated performance metrics is variably ordered, in real time, based at least in part on the calculated weight of each designated performance metric and the determined adjusted weight of the particular designated performance metric(post-solution activity and amounts to outputting data), receiving, via the user interface of the subject tax professional agent, a selection to regenerate the hierarchical ordering of the plurality of designated performance metrics on the user interface(amounts to data gathering means), in response to the selection, automatically regenerating the hierarchical ordering to obtain an adjusted hierarchical ordering, wherein the adjusted hierarchical ordering is based on the adjusted weight for the particular designated performance metric(post-solution activity and amounts to outputting data), generating for display, an icon associated with the at least one designated performance metric, wherein the icon is indicative of the difference between the position and the updated position(post-solution activity and amounts to outputting data); generating for display, in real time, within a user interface of the subject tax professional agent, the hierarchical ordering of the plurality of designated performance metrics(post-solution activity and amounts to outputting data), generating for display, in real time within the user interface of the subject tax professional agent, the adjusted hierarchical ordering,(post-solution activity and amounts to outputting data), and responsive to updating the overall performance score during the live agent interaction, automatically updating the user interface to display the updated overall performance score in real time(post-solution activity and amounts to outputting data) to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they 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 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. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification figure [0026] describe high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element”)).
The Examiner emphasizes that merely using a general purpose computer to execute the communications processing activities by providing feedback/results to an agent in real-time, without more, does not improve the performance of a computer or any technology at all, but merely employs generic technology as a tool to perform the steps of the abstract idea, such that any improvement achieved by automating the processing of communications would come from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather than the sequence of steps/activities recited in the method itself, which does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claim. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”) (cited in the Federal Circuit's FairWarning decision). Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.
Applicant argues that "Example 37" of the "Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas", which is eligible under Prong II step 2A. Applicant asserts that the claims recite a specific manner for automatically displaying icons to a user based on a particular criterion, as described in Example 37. Additionally, in a similar fashion to Example 37, the claims, as amended, provide for an improved user interface for electronic devices, as the recited limitations aid in the real-time, on demand evaluation of metrics on an interface by providing an icon indicative of a difference in position of a performance metric between the ordered hierarchy and the adjusted hierarchy, which may then allow an agent associated with the metrics to make efficient corrections in real time after requesting feedback via a selection on the interface.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that Example 37 recites the combination of additional elements of receiving, via a GUI, a user selection to organize each icon based on the amount of use of each icon, a processor for performing the determining step, and automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use. The claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. Unlike Example 37, the claims of instant application recite display information based on a determination step, i.e., “generating for display, an icon associated with the at least one designated performance metric, wherein the icon is indicative of the difference between the position and the updated position”, which amounts to displaying results and insignificant extra-solution activity. Examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Next the examiner notes that in response to the selection, automatically regenerating the hierarchical ordering to obtain an adjusted hierarchical ordering, wherein the adjusted hierarchical ordering is based on the adjusted weight for the particular designated performance metric, and in response to automatically regenerating the hierarchical ordering, determining a difference between a position in the hierarchical ordering and an updated position in the adjusted hierarchical ordering for at least one designated performance metric from the plurality of designated performance metrics are a steps that can be performed with the aid of a pen and paper further, the Examiner emphasizes that merely using a general purpose computer to execute the communications processing activities by providing feedback/results to an agent in real-time, without more, does not improve the performance of a computer or any technology at all, but merely employs generic technology as a tool to perform the steps of the abstract idea, such that any improvement achieved by automating the processing of communications would come from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather than the sequence of steps/activities recited in the method itself, which does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claim. See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element”)).
In response to applicant assertion that limitations improve the operation of the user interface itself by automatically reorganizing, re-ranking, and re-presenting performance metrics during an ongoing live interaction. Doing so allows agents to make real-time corrections based on the metrics as ordered, rather than receive after-the-fact survey information that cannot be immediately acted upon, as is seen in traditional feedback systems. Specification at [0018]. This improvement to computer functionality is akin to the eligible claims in DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), where a problem rooted in computer technology was solved by a specific technical solution, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In contrast to DDR, which was directed to a solution rooted in Internet technology, Applicant’s invention can be easily performed in the absence of the computer and network-based elements recited in the claims, such that Applicant’s claims cannot be reasonably taken as being “necessarily rooted in computer technology.” Instead, the computer-based elements in Applicant’s claims amount to nothing more than appending generic computing elements to the claimed abstract idea in order to tie it to a particular operating environment through generic computer implementation, but without any indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, the network, or any other technology.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection, applicant’s arguments have been considered and are not persuasive, and therefore U.S.C. §101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 21-30, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 21-30, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (“MPEP 2106”).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the non-transitory computer readable medium (claims 1, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 21-30, and 35), the method (claim 33), and the non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 34) are directed to an eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One of MPEP 2106.04, it is next idea that falls under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Processes’ abstract idea groupings since the claims set forth steps for providing feedback of an agent's performance, which is reasonably considered as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), as well as steps that can be performed in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), wherein the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions which, when executed, cause a processor to execute a method of providing real-time feedback to a tax professional agent assisting a client with using a tax software, the method comprising: automatically selecting a first set of tax professional agents for assessment based at least in part on a predetermined periodic time interval; recording a first set of measurable parameters during a first performance of the first set of tax professional agents; recording a second set of measurable parameters during a prior performance of a second set of tax professional agents, wherein the second set of tax professional agents is distinct from the first set of tax professional agents, wherein the prior performance occurs before the first performance; determining a plurality of designated performance metrics for evaluating the first set of tax professional agents from a set of performance metrics of the second set of tax professional agents, the plurality of designated performance metrics being variably determined from the set of performance metrics; calculating values for each designated performance metric based on the second set of measurable parameters; calculating a weight for each designated performance metric based on the prior performance of the second set of tax professional agents; calculating an overall performance score for a subject agent in the first set of tax professional agents as a summation of a set of products of the values for each designated performance metric and the weight for each designated performance metric, as determined based on the second set of tax professional agents; transmitting the overall performance score to the subject tax professional agent in the first set of at tax professional agents in real time during the first performance to cause the first performance of the subject tax professional agent to be modified, wherein the first performance is a live agent interaction with the client; automatically generating a hierarchical ordering of the plurality of designated performance metrics based on the weight for each designated performance metric such that a first designated performance metric with a first weight is ranked above a second designated performance metric with a second weight when the first weight is greater than the second weight; generating for display, in real time, within a user interface of the subject tax professional agent, the hierarchical ordering of the plurality of designated performance metrics; determining that the live agent interaction is occurring on a date that is during tax season; automatically determining, in real time during the live agent interaction, an adjusted weight for a particular designated performance metric, the adjusted weight based at least in part on a value for at least one of the plurality of designated performance metrics during a first portion of the live agent interaction, wherein the value is based at least in part on determining that the live agent interaction is occurring on the date that is during tax season; responsive to a current time duration of the live agent interaction, adjusting feedback to the subject tax professional agent when the current time duration of the live agent interaction reaches a predetermined time duration, adjusting the feedback including at least calculating, in real time during the live agent interaction, an updated overall performance score for the subject tax professional agent, the updated overall performance score based at least in part on the adjusted weight; transmitting the updated overall performance score to the subject tax professional agent in real time during an ongoing portion of the live agent interaction occurring after the first portion of the live agent interaction; receiving, via the user interface of the subject tax professional agent, a selection to regenerate the hierarchical ordering of the plurality of designated performance metrics on the user interface; in response to the selection, automatically regenerating the hierarchical ordering to obtain an adjusted hierarchical ordering, wherein the adjusted hierarchical ordering is based on the adjusted weight for the particular designated performance metric; in response to automatically regenerating the hierarchical ordering, determining a difference between a position in the hierarchical ordering and an updated position in the adjusted hierarchical ordering for at least one designated performance metric from the plurality of designated performance metrics; generating for display, in real time within the user interface of the subject tax professional agent, the adjusted hierarchical ordering; generating for display, an icon associated with the at least one designated performance metric, wherein the icon is indicative of the difference between the position and the updated position; generating for display, in real time within a user interface of the subject tax professional agent, an indication of the overall performance score over time during the live agent interaction; and responsive to updating the overall performance score during the live agent interaction, automatically updating the user interface to display the updated overall performance score in real time.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions which, when executed, cause a processor to execute a method, a tax software, generating for display, in real time within a user interface of the subject tax professional agent, an indication of the overall performance score over time during the live agent interaction (post-solution activity and amounts to outputting data), generating for display, in real time during the ongoing portion of the live agent interaction, within the user interface of the subject agent, a performance metric list comprising the plurality of designated performance metrics, wherein the plurality of designated performance metrics is variably ordered, in real time, based at least in part on the calculated weight of each designated performance metric and the determined adjusted weight of the particular designated performance metric(post-solution activity and amounts to outputting data), receiving, via the user interface of the subject tax professional agent, a selection to regenerate the hierarchical ordering of the plurality of designated performance metrics on the user interface(amounts to data gathering means), in response to the selection, automatically regenerating the hierarchical ordering to obtain an adjusted hierarchical ordering, wherein the adjusted hierarchical ordering is based on the adjusted weight for the particular designated performance metric(post-solution activity and amounts to outputting data), generating for display, an icon associated with the at least one designated performance metric, wherein the icon is indicative of the difference between the position and the updated position(post-solution activity and amounts to outputting data); generating for display, in real time, within a user interface of the subject tax professional agent, the hierarchical ordering of the plurality of designated performance metrics(post-solution activity and amounts to outputting data), generating for display, in real time within the user interface of the subject tax professional agent, the adjusted hierarchical ordering,(post-solution activity and amounts to outputting data), and responsive to updating the overall performance score during the live agent interaction, automatically updating the user interface to display the updated overall performance score in real time(post-solution activity and amounts to outputting data) to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they 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 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. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification figure [0026] describe high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element”)).
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. The additional limitations are directed to: a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions which, when executed, cause a processor to execute a method, a tax software, and generating for display, in real time within a user interface of the subject tax professional agent, an indication of the overall performance score over time during the live agent interaction (amounts to outputting data) and generating for display, in real time during the ongoing portion of the live agent interaction, within the user interface of the subject agent, a performance metric list comprising the plurality of designated performance metrics, wherein the plurality of designated performance metrics is variably ordered, in real time, based at least in part on the calculated weight of each designated performance metric and the determined adjusted weight of (amounts to displaying results), generating for display, in real time, within a user interface of the subject tax professional agent, the hierarchical ordering of the plurality of designated performance metrics(amounts to outputting data), receiving, via the user interface of the subject tax professional agent, a selection to regenerate the hierarchical ordering of the plurality of designated performance metrics on the user interface(amounts to data gathering means), in response to the selection, automatically regenerating the hierarchical ordering to obtain an adjusted hierarchical ordering, wherein the adjusted hierarchical ordering is based on the adjusted weight for the particular designated performance metric(post-solution activity and amounts to outputting data), generating for display, an icon associated with the at least one designated performance metric, wherein the icon is indicative of the difference between the position and the updated position(post-solution activity and amounts to outputting data); generating for display, in real time within the user interface of the subject tax professional agent, the adjusted hierarchical ordering,(amounts to outputting data), and responsive to updating the overall performance score during the live agent interaction, automatically updating the user interface to display the updated overall performance score in real time(amounts to outputting data) to implement the abstract idea. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification ([0026]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
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 conventional 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 the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general-purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. 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 conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
While claims 1, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 21-30, and 33-35 are allowable over prior art of records, they are not allowable because they stand rejected over the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth in the Office Action. If they were amended in such a way to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, they would be allowable.
The examiner notes the closest prior art of record are Kim A. Cooper (US 2008/0267386 Al, hereinafter “Cooper”), Jerome Gouvernel (US 2016/0275431 Al, hereinafter “Gouvernel”), Sebastian Blank (US 2016/0078391 Al, hereinafter “Blank”), Suchana Seth (US 2015/0178371 Al, hereinafter “Seth”), Tomas Gorny, and Kunal Mehta (US 2018/0024868 Al, hereinafter “Mehta”). The closest prior of art listed either in singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the limitation obvious, and this adequately reflects the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 21-30, and 33-35 are allowable over the prior art of record, and therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180144283 A1
Identifying Workers in A Crowdsourcing or Microtasking Platform Who Perform Low-Quality Work and/or Are Really Automated Bots
Freitas; Joao et al.
US 20180121856 A1
Factor-Based Processing of Performance Metrics
Song; Yongling et al.
US 20180024868 A1
Computer Resource Allocation to Workloads in An Information Technology Environment
Mehta; Kunal et al.
US 20170083848 A1
Employee Performance Measurement, Analysis and Feedback System and Method
Edelman; Vladimir et al.
US 20160364672 A1
Business Metric Illumination Control
McCormack; Tony et al.
US 20160275431 A1
Employee Evaluation System
Gouvernel; Jerome et al.
US 20160219149 A1
Using Simultaneous Multi-Channel for Continuous and Timely Feedback About Agent Performance During a Customer Interaction
Krishnan; Parameshwaran et al.
US 20160205697 A1
Analytics-Assisted, Multi-Agents, Self-Learning, Self-Managing, Flexible and Adaptive Framework for Intelligent SON
Tan; Yongxi et al.
US 20160112565 A1
Agent Evaluation System
Surdick; Robert Troy
US 20160104095 A1
Systems And Computer-Implemented Methods of Automated Assessment of Performance Monitoring Activities
Potgieter; Lyle et al.
US 20160098663 A1
Agent Quality and Performance Monitoring Based on Non-Primary Skill Evaluation
Skiba; David et al.
US 20160078391 A1
Agricultural Information Sensing and Retrieval
Blank; Sebastian et al.
US 20150302436 A1
Decision Strategy Analytics
Reynolds; Thomas J.
US 9118763 B1
Real Time Feedback Proxy
Margulies; Edwin Kenneth et al.
US 20150199630 A1
Operator Performance Opportunity Analysis
Pfeiffer; Dohn W. et al.
US 20150178371 A1
Systems And Methods for Facilitating Dialogue Mining
Seth; Suchana et al.
US 20150142530 A1
Systems And Methods for Performance Summary Citations
Motamedi; Nima et al.
US 20150134430 A1
Automated Teller Machine (Atm) Interface
Ellis; Stephen M. et al.
US 20150117632 A1
System And Method for Performance-Based Routing of Interactions in a Contact Center
Konig; Yochai et al.
US 20150030151 A1
Next Best Action Method and System
Bellini; Davide Guglielmo et al.
US 8775234 B2
Sales Force Automation System with Focused Account Calling Tool
Jackness; Jeffrey et al.
US 20130142322 A1
System And Method for Enhancing Call Center Performance
Grasso; Maria Antonietta et al.
US 20130067351 A1
Performance Management System Using Performance Feedback Pool
Yokoi; Yumiko Christine et al.
US 20130018686 A1
Work Skillset Generation
Wright; Simon Anthony et al.
US 20120310652 A1
Adaptive Human Computer Interface (Aahci)
O'Sullivan; Daniel
US 20120303421 A1
System For Providing Goal-Triggered Feedback
Yokoi; Yumiko Christine et al.
US 20120069978 A1
Storage, Processing, And Display of Service Desk Performance Metrics
Evans, JR.; Robert Louis et al.
US 20120051536 A1
Estimating Agent Performance in A Call Routing Center System
Chishti; Zia et al.
US 20110307301 A1
Decision Aid Tool for Competency Analysis
Laberge; Jason et al.
US 7913063 B1
System And Method for Performance Based Call Distribution
Lyerly; Thomas
US 20100332286 A1
Predicting Communication Outcome Based on a Regression Model
Melamed; I. Dan et al.
US 20100153289 A1
System And Method for Creating a Dynamic Customized Employment Profile and Subsequent Use Thereof
Schneiderman; Jamie et al.
US 20100111285 A1
Balancing Multiple Computer Models in A Call Center Routing System
Chishti; Zia
US 20090292594 A1
System For Evaluating an Employee
Zaidi; ADEEL
US 20090234720 A1
Method And System for Tracking and Coaching Service Professionals
George; Sam O. et al.
US 20080267386 A1
Performance Motivation Systems and Methods for Contact Centers
Cooper; Kim A.
US 20080114608 A1
System And Method for Rating Performance
Bastien; Rene
US 20080040206 A1
Performance Optimization
Silvera; Timothy et al.
US 20080002823 A1
System And Method for Integrated Workforce and Quality Management
Fama; Jason et al.
US 20070244743 A1
Systems And Methods for Evaluating and Compensating Employees Based on Performance
Vegliante; Anthony J. et al.
US 20050141693 A1
System And Method for Providing a Service to a Customer Via a Communication Link
Stuart, Robert O. et al.
US 20050091071 A1
Business Performance and Customer Care Quality Measurement
Lee, Howard M.
US 20040172323 A1
Customer Feedback Method and System
Stamm, Patrick
US 20040138944 A1
Program Performance Management System
Whitacre, Cindy et al.
US 20020184085 A1
Employee Performance Monitoring System
Lindia, Stephen A. et al.
US 20020082736 A1
Quality Management System
Lech, Mark Matthew et al.
US 6404883 B1
System And Method for Providing Call Statistics in Real Time
Hartmeier; Martina K.
US 20010056367 A1
Method And System for Providing Performance Statistics to Agents
Herbert, Meghan et al.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at (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.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625