DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's amendment filed on 2 October 2025. Applicant’s amendment on 2 October 2025 amended Claims 1, 15, and 26. Currently Claims 1-30 are pending and have been examined. The Examiner notes that based on ongoing court cases and guidance from the United States Patent Office the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner notes that the prior art was rejected has been withdrawn and the application could be in position for allowable if the 101 rejection is overcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 15-16 that “with respect to prong 2 of step 2A, Applicant respectfully submits that the claim recites a practical application for the purposes of patent eligibility. Amended claim 1 recite specific technological solutions that improve computer system functionality in multi communication channels environment. The amended claims address the technical problem of "rigidness of conventional contact centers to meet customer needs which can be continuously changing." Accordingly, the disclosed flexible routing techniques improve on the rigidness of conventional contact centers to track customer-agent interactions across multiple simultaneous communication channels or maintain session continuity during channel transitions, leading to system efficiencies. The amended claims provide a technological solution through the element "detecting a channel transition request" implements real-time event monitoring across multiple communications that goes beyond simple data collection. The "automatically routing the communication to the same agent while maintaining continuity of a work session" requires enhanced core routing module that synchronizes data across disparate communication channels and maintains routing table consistency during transitions”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments in the Examiner notes that the claims integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application is respectfully traversed. The claims reasonably fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A Prong One because the recited limitations of "detecting a channel transition request," "monitoring user interface display data," and "automatically routing the communication to the same agent" are observations, evaluations, and judgments that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without physical aids such as pen, paper, or a computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes performed by humans and those performed on a computer, as "courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person's mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc. Here, a contact center agent or supervisor could observe customer communications across channels (monitoring), identify when a customer requests to change communication channels (detecting), and make a determination to route the subsequent communication to the same agent (routing), all using conventional tools such as phone logs, message boards, or manual assignment sheets. The claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality without sufficient details of how the solution is technically accomplished, covering any way of performing these observations and evaluations. See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A. (claims to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results" where data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind are mental processes).
Regarding Step 2A Prong Two, the claim does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant argues that the claims provide an improvement to computer system functionality by addressing the "rigidness of conventional contact centers" and enabling "seamless transition of communication" across channels. However, an improvement in the abstract idea itself, or an improvement to a business process, is not an improvement in technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a); see also Trading Technologies Int'l v. IBG (claimed user interface that provided a trader with more information improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology). The asserted improvements—flexible routing to meet customer needs, maintaining session continuity, and tracking customer-agent interactions—all pertain to enhancing contact center operations and customer service quality, which are commercial or business improvements rather than technological ones. An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); McRO. Here, the claim elements cited by the Applicant - "detecting a channel transition request," "enhanced core routing module," "monitoring user interface display data," and "triggering system initiation of a timestamped data capture process" - are recited at a high level of generality without details of how the computer performs these functions in a manner that differs from conventional contact center systems. The specification excerpts describe what the system accomplishes (switching channels, maintaining continuity, creating work bursts with timestamps) but do not provide sufficient technical detail showing how these are implemented in a way that improves computer functionality itself. The recitation of an "enhanced core routing module" without specification of what makes it enhanced, or how it synchronizes data in a non-conventional manner, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the cited limitations of "monitoring" user interface data and "triggering" timestamped data capture constitute data gathering and recording activities, which are insignificant extra-solution activity when they amount to necessary steps for applying the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application, and the claim remains directed to the judicial exception. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
The Applicant argues on pages 16-17 that “the claims recite significantly more through specific technological implementations that provide computer functionality improvements. The claim recites "accessing a database, by the computing system processor and based on the initiation of the work session, to identify the multiple active conversation items occurring in the two or more communications simultaneously received from the one customer on the two or more communication channels. The claim also recites the steps of "identifying, by the computing system processor based on the multiple active conversation items, a work session channel type based on how synchronous each channel type is, wherein a voice channel type is more synchronous than a messaging channel type, and the messaging channel type is more synchronous than a mail channel type. The claim also recites the additional steps of "assigning, by computing system processor, the identified work session channel type to the work session associated with the conversation, wherein the assigned channel type corresponds to a most synchronous channel type among the channel types within the conversation;" These additional steps tie the live, real-time monitoring of multiple active conversation items across different channels to the processor's ability to make a decision on how synchronous the channel is based on a live, real-time communication monitoring. Based on how synchronous the channel is, the system assigns the channel to the work session. These steps add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea of "identifying and deriving workforce management data" and therefore add significantly more to the abstract idea than mere computer implementation. The claim, when taken as a whole, does not simply describe the step of receiving, identifying, tagging, tracking, and deriving workforce management data, but combines the steps of live, real- time communication monitoring for making a decision on how synchronous the channel. By this, the claim goes beyond the mere concept of simply identifying and deriving workforce management data using a computer”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments in the Examiner notes that the claims reasonably fall within the mental process grouping because limitations such as "detecting a channel transition request," "monitoring user interface display data," and "automatically routing the communication to the same agent" constitute observations, evaluations, and judgments that can practically be performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A contact center agent or supervisor could observe customer communications across channels, identify when a customer requests to switch channels, and determine to route the subsequent communication to the same agent using conventional tools such as phone logs or manual assignment systems. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes performed by humans and those performed on a computer. Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc. The claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality without sufficient details of how the solution is technically accomplished, such that they cover any way of performing these mental observations and evaluations. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A.
Regarding integration into a practical application, Applicant's argument fails because the asserted improvements - flexible routing to meet customer needs, maintaining session continuity, and tracking customer-agent interactions - pertain to enhancing contact center operations and customer service, which are business process improvements rather than technological improvements. An improvement in the abstract idea itself or in a business process is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a); Trading Technologies Int'l v. IBG, (providing traders with more information improved the business process but did not improve computers or technology). The determinative consideration is whether the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or merely the idea of a solution. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc. Here, the cited claim elements - "enhanced core routing module," "monitoring user interface display data," and "timestamped data capture process" - are recited without details of how the computer performs these functions differently from conventional systems. The specification describes what the system accomplishes but does not provide technical detail showing how it improves computer functionality itself. The recitation of an "enhanced core routing module" without specification of what makes it enhanced or how it synchronizes data non-conventionally amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, "monitoring" and "triggering" data capture constitute data gathering activities, which are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application and remains directed to the judicial exception. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
The remaining Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of managing workforce management on multiple channels. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claim(s) (1-30) is/are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (from the January 2019 §101 Examination Guidelines), claim(s) (1-14) is/are directed to a method, claim(s) (15-25) is/ are directed to a computer readable medium, and claims(s) (26-30) is/are directed to a system and therefore the claims recites a series of steps and, therefore the claims are viewed as falling in statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental process. Specifically, the independent claims 1, 15, and 26 recite a mental process: as drafted, the claim recites the limitation of identifying contact items within each conversation and deriving granularity of work sessions which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for a processor language, the claim encompasses the user manually analyzing the data and determining workforce management over multiple channels. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. It has been established by ongoing guidance that claims that contain a generic processor are still viewed as mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, however this is different for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (network monitoring, data encryption for communication, and rendering images). Therefore, these limitations are viewed a mental process. Additionally, with regard to the instant application the Examiner has reviewed the disclosure and determined that the underlying claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of a pen and paper, and thus it is viewed that the applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, 2) in a computer environment or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, and therefore is considered to recite a mental process.
Note to the Applicant per the 2019 October Guidance: The 2019 PEG sets forth a test that distills the relevant case law to aid in examination, and does not attempt to articulate each and every decision. As further explained in the 2019 PEG, the Office has shifted its approach from the case-comparison approach in determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea and instead uses enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent. By grouping the abstract ideas, the 2019 PEG shifts examiners’ focus from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types. In sum, the 2019 PEG synthesizes the holdings of various court decisions to facilitate examination.
Step 2A Prong 2
Specifically, the determined judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer additionally that data receiving, detecting, routing, tagging, tracking, monitoring, triggering, accessing, assigning, and transmitting steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity (including post solution activity).
The claim recites the additional element(s): that a processor is used to perform the identifying, deriving, and identifying steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (identifying, deriving, and identifying information regarding workforce management on multiple channels). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional element(s): receiving incoming communications, detecting a channel, routing the communication, tagging each contact item, tracking periods of time, tracking tagged conversations performs the identifying, monitoring a work burst, triggering system, accessing a database, assigning the identified work, triggering system, deriving step, and transmitting data. The receiving, detecting, routing, tagging, tracking, monitoring, accessing, triggering, accessing, assigning, and transmitting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of identifying and deriving information regarding workforce management on multiple channels), and amounts to mere data management, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor that performs the identifying and deriving steps are also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the identifying, deriving, and identifying steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor).
The Examiner has further determined that the claims as a whole does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in order to provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. It has been determined that based on the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. It has not been provided clearly in the disclosure that the alleged improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, but is instead in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore does not improve the technology. Second, in the instance, which in this case it is not clear that the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must not reflect the disclosed improvement (the claims must include components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification).
Note to the Applicant from the October 2019 Guidance: Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgment on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. For example, in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an applicant could submit a declaration under § 1.132 providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.
For further clarification the Examiner points out that the claim(s) 1-30 recite(s) receiving incoming communications, identifying one or more contact items, tagging each contact item, tracking periods of time, tracking tagged conversations, monitoring workburst, triggering system, accessing a database, assigning the identified work, triggering system termination, deriving data, and transmitting which are viewed as an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of a computer for receiving, detecting, routing, identifying, tagging, tracking, monitoring, triggering, accessing, assigning, triggering, deriving and transmitting which is the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea (managing workforce management on multiple channels) in the manner of “apply it”.
Thus, the claims recites an abstract idea directed to a mental process (i.e. to identify and derive workforce management data). Using a computer to receiving, identifying, tagging, tracking, and deriving the data resulting from this kind of mental process merely implements the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it” and does not provide 'something more' to make the claimed invention patent eligible. The claimed limitations of a computing device is not constraining the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and do not provide significantly more.
The identifying and deriving workforce management data would clearly be to a mental activity that a company would go through in order to decide how to provide workforce management. The specification makes it clear that the claimed invention is directed to the mental activity data gathering and data analysis to determine how to manage a workforce:
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’.
The dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies.
Claims 9 and 14 recite limitations which further limit the claimed analysis of data.
Claims 3-6, 8, 10-13, 17-20, 22-25, and 28-30 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed insignificantly extra solution activity.
Using a computer to perform the data processing as claimed is merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it” and does not provide significantly more. Additionally with respect to the Berkheimer the Examiner points out that the steps of the claim are viewed to be to nothing more than spell out what it means to apply it on a computer and cannot confer patent-eligibility as there are no additional limitations beyond applying an abstract idea, restricted to a computer. As the claims are merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “Apply It” the need for a Berkheimer analysis does not apply and is not required. With respect to the currently filed claims the implementing steps can be found in Pirat which discloses how the claims alone and in combination are viewed to be well understood, routine and conventional based on point 3 of the Berkheimer memo and subsequent evidence, complying with and providing evidence.
Claims 2, 7, 16, 21, and 27 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed non-functional data labels.
Thus, the problem the claimed invention is directed to answering the question based on gathered and analyzed information about the generating of workforce data. This is not a technical or technological problem but is rather in the realm of workforce management and therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. This is the case because in order for the claims to be viewed as significantly more the claims must incorporate the integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly. Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more. Additionally, another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. "[T]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines. All together the above analysis shows there is not improvement in computer functionality, or improvement to any other technology or technical field. The claim is ineligible.
With respect to the Berkheimer as noted above the same analysis applies to the 2B where the claims are viewed as applying it and as such no further analysis is required. However, with respect to the claims that are viewed as extra solution or post solution activity the Examiner notes that the claims are viewed as well-understood, routine, and conventional because a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). An appropriate publication could include a book, manual, review article, or other source that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry.
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’. Specifically, the dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies of the independent claims.
With respect to the legal concept of prima facie case being a procedural tool of patent examination, which allocates the burdens going forward between the examiner and the applicant. MPEP § 2106.07 discusses the requirements of a prima facie case of ineligibility. In particular, the initial burden was on the Examiner and believed to be properly provided as to explain why the claim(s) are ineligible for patenting because of the above provided rejection which clearly and specifically points out in accordance with properly providing the requirement satisfying the initial burden of proof based on the Guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the burden now shifts to the applicant.
Therefore, based on the above analysis as conducted based on the Guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office the claims are viewed as a court recognized abstract idea, are viewed as a judicial exception, does not integrate the claims into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept, therefore the claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Raleigh et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0094159 A1) discloses a controlling mobile device communications on a roaming network based on device state.
CHISHTI (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0218840 A1) discloses techniques for workforce management in a contact center system.
Lawrence et al. (U.S. Patent 11,783,246 B2) discloses systems and methods for workforce management system.
Bergher et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0215324 A1) discloses data tracking and generation for workforce management.
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 STEPHEN S SWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7789. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 - 6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SSS/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623.
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623