DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 10/21/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/21/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4, 9-15, 17-27 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/21/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant submits on pages 15-16 of the remarks that the Office Action does not identify which recitations are allegedly directed to a mental process and which recitations are allegedly drawn to a mathematical concept. Examiner respectfully disagreed, however a more detailed explanation is provided in the analysis below.
Applicant submits on page 17 of the remarks that the claims simply cannot practically be performed in the human mind and accordingly, the claims are not directed to a mental process. Examiner notes that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the steps recited in the claims are acts of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "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., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). 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. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Applicant submits on pages 18-19 of the remarks that even if assuming arguendo that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the claims are integrated into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional elements are cited in a very general sense, performing a computer generic function of sending/receiving data and do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea, therefore is not reasonably understood as integrating the judicial exception into a practical application and do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Further, Examiner notes that when determining whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B the analysis takes into consideration whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Transformation 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." Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 658, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972)). See MPEP 2106.05(c). Furthermore, the additional elements recited in the claims merely recite the use of a generic computer to perform generic computer functions of storing and transmitting data. These generic computer functions do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Applicant’s argument about improvement in a technological field, the Examiner notes that per the Revised October 2019 guidance: in order to determine if an invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology and integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, while the courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, MPEP 2106.04(a) and 2106.05(a) provide guidance, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement; second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. When looking at the specification, it supports that the provided improvement is directed not to the technology but to the abstract idea.
Applicant submits on page 22 of the remarks that the additional elements of the claims constitute significantly more than an abstract idea. Examiner notes that when determining whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B the analysis takes into consideration whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Transformation 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." Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 658, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972)). See MPEP 2106.05(c). Furthermore, the additional elements recited in the claims are not specially programmed computer or computer elements and the claim merely recites the use of a generic computer to perform generic computer functions of storing and transmitting data. These generic computer functions do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9-15, 17-27 is/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.
With respect to claims 1-2, 4, 9-15, 17-27, the independent claims (claims 1, 13 and 22) are directed, in part, to a method and a system for analyzing learning content’s impact on agent performance. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-2, 4, 9-12 and 22-27 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process and claims 13-15, 17-21 are directed to a system which falls under the statutory category of a machine. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations, additionally the claims recite limitations directed to mathematical calculations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to mental processes, including: automated periodic analysis of learning content's impact on agent performance; publishing… a plurality of completion events, wherein each completion event of the plurality of completion events is associated with completion of a learning module by a respective agent of a plurality of agents…; retrieving, by an analytics service of the multiple services of the cloud-based computing system, the plurality of completion events from the stream-processing messaging bus; …allocating computing resources… to an instance of a virtual function to perform the automatic determining and eliminating the instance of the virtual function to deallocate the computing resources of the cloud-based computing system after determining the respective first set of performance metrics to improve an efficiency in resource utilization…; executing… a periodic analysis of a potential lapsing of post-learning periods for each agent that has completed the learning module; determining that the respective predefined second period has elapsed, wherein determining that the respective predefined second period has elapsed includes triggering instantiation of the corresponding virtual function…separating the plurality of agents into a plurality of agent groups based on one or more agent characteristic…
and mathematical calculations including: periodically updating correlation test results data; automatically determining… a respective first set of performance metrics for each agent of the plurality of agents for a respective predefined first period before each respective agent of the plurality of agents participated in the learning module after retrieving the respective completion event of the plurality of completion events… determining… a respective second set of performance metrics for each agent of the plurality of agents for a respective predefined second period after each respective agent of the plurality of agents participated in the learning module in response to the agent development service…; computing…a respective set of performance metric differences between the respective first set of performance metrics and the respective second set of performance metrics of the respective agent; and generating correlation test result data represented as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) data by performing… correlation analysis to determine whether the learning module has a significant effect on one or more performance metrics of the respective agent based on a plurality of performance metric differences computed for the plurality of agents, wherein the plurality of performance metric differences includes each of the respective sets of performance metric differences; wherein performing the correlation analysis comprises executing a goodness of fit test to confirm that the performance metric differences constitute a normal distribution, and executing at least one of a paired t-test or a signed rank test to obtain a p-value and 95% confidence interval associated with the performance metric differences;… and performing a separate correlation analysis on each agent group of the plurality of agent groups.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, if a claim limitation covers mathematical calculations, then it falls under the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim recites additional elements: “a conversation service executed by a cloud-based computing system”; “a computing system”; “a stream-processing message bus”; “an analytics service”; “JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) data”; “a system”; “at least one processor”; “at least one memory”. The dependent claims recite additional element “an application programming interface”. These additional element in both steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1 and 3 and related text and [0057-0060] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “The computing device 300 includes a processing device 302 that executes algorithms and/or processes data in accordance with operating logic 308, an input/output device 304 that enables communication between the computing device 300 and one or more external devices 310, and memory 306 which stores, for example, data received from the external device 310 via the input/output device 304. The input/output device 304 allows the computing device 300 to communicate with the external device 310. For example, the input/output device 304 may include a transceiver, a network adapter, a network card, an interface, one or more communication ports (e.g., a USB port, serial port, parallel port, an analog port, a digital port, VGA, DVI, HDMI, FireWire, CAT 5, or any other type of communication port or interface), and/or other communication circuitry. Communication circuitry of the computing device 300 may be configured to use any one or more communication technologies (e.g., wireless or wired communications) and associated protocols (e.g., Ethernet, Bluetooth®, Wi-Fi®, WiMAX, etc.) to effect such communication depending on the particular computing device 300. The input/output device 304 may include hardware, software, and/or firmware suitable for performing the techniques described herein. The external device 310 may be any type of device that allows data to be inputted or outputted from the computing device 300. For example, in various embodiments, the external device 310 may be embodied as the cloud-based system 102, the contact center system 106, the user device 108, and/or a portion thereof. Further, in some embodiments, the external device 310 may be embodied as another computing device, switch, diagnostic tool, controller, printer, display, alarm, peripheral device (e.g., keyboard, mouse, touch screen display, etc.), and/or any other computing, processing, and/or communication device capable of performing the functions described herein. Furthermore, in some embodiments, it should be appreciated that the external device 310 may be integrated into the computing device 300. [0060] The processing device 302 may be embodied as any type of processor(s) capable of performing the functions described herein. In particular, the processing device 302 may be embodied as one or more single or multi-core processors, microcontrollers, or other processor or processing/controlling circuits. For example, in some embodiments, the processing device 302 may include or be embodied as an arithmetic logic unit (ALU), central processing unit (CPU), digital signal processor (DSP), and/or another suitable processor(s). The processing device 302 may be a programmable type, a dedicated hardwired state machine, or a combination thereof. Processing devices 302 with multiple processing units may utilize distributed, pipelined, and/or parallel processing in various embodiments.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. 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. 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 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, 9-15, 17-27 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above. Although the prior art made of record discloses systems and methods for analysis of learning content's impact on agent performance, the prior art does not specifically disclose the sequence of steps as recited in the claims: “…generating correlation test result data represented as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) data by performing, by the agent development service of the multiple services of the cloud-based computing system and for each agent of the plurality of agents, correlation analysis to determine whether the learning module has a significant effect on one or more performance metrics of the respective agent based on a plurality of performance metric differences computed for the plurality of agents, wherein the plurality of performance metric differences includes each of the respective sets of performance metric differences; wherein performing the correlation analysis comprises executing a goodness of fit test to confirm that the performance metric differences constitute a normal distribution, and executing at least one of a paired t-test or a signed rank test to obtain a p-value and 95% confidence interval associated with the performance metric differences; and wherein performing the correlation analysis to determine whether the learning module has a significant effect on one or more performance metrics of the respective agent based on the plurality of performance metric differences computed for the plurality of agents comprises separating the plurality of agents into a plurality of agent groups based on one or more agent characteristic, and performing a separate correlation analysis on each agent group of the plurality of agent groups.”
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm 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 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625