DETAILED ACTION
The following Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s communication received on 6/11/2025.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, 4-6, 12-14 and 16-17 have been amended while claims 7-10 and 18-21 were previously canceled. Claims 1-6 and 11-17 are pending.
Response to Amendments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments received 6/11/2025 regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claim elements provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea because the continuously calculated MME score of the agent is an indication of agent handling multiple concurrent multi-channel interactions effectively and sending the MME score to the ACD system to route multiple concurrent multi-channel interactions only to agents having MME score above a predefined threshold to reduce an average time of each interaction improves routing of the ACD system over time.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the sending of the MME score to the ACD system to change attributes of routing skills of the agents integrates the judicial exception into a practical application and the continuous update of the ACD system based on repeated measurement does not merely link the judicial exception to a technical field but instead adds a meaningful limitation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Using claim 1 as representative, the claim recites the additional elements of a processor, one or more applications, a data storage of interactions and a data storage of agents, and a memory to store the data storages, operating an interaction module to retrieve from data storage, and sending a score to the ACD system to change attributes and to route interactions. It is noted that the score is sent to the ACD system for the purpose of changing attributes and routing interactions; however, the changing and routing are not claimed as positive steps or functions within the scope of the independent claims.
As discussed below, these are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea based on MPEP 2106.05(f). Even with continuously calculated MME scores, the ACD system is recited at a high level of generality for routing the multiple concurrent multi-channel interactions to agents based on their scores which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to transmit data (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) regarding invoking computers merely as a tool including TLI Communications). For example, in the TLI Communications decision, the court noted the telephone unit and server were invoked for the purpose of their known functionality. Here the ACD system is invoked for its known ability to transmit interactions to agents. Similar to the Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) decision where the claimed result of wireless delivery of out-of-region broadcasting content to a cellular telephone via a network lacked details of how the delivery was accomplished, Applicant’s routing limitation based on agent’s having a threshold score lacks technical implementation details and therefore provides an idea of an outcome (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) regarding lacking details as to how accomplished). Also, MPEP 2106.05(f)(3) discusses the implication of the particularity or generality of the application of an abstract idea stating a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. See further discussion of step 2A prong 2 and step 2B below.
It is again noted that the claim sends the MME score to the ACD system to change attributes and to route multiple concurrent multi-channel interactions to agents. The claim does not positively recite steps of changing or routing within the scope of the claims. Further while the preamble states the processor is configured to be operated in a continuous manner, this appears to be a statement of purpose or use as the limitations in the body of the claim are not recited in a continuous or repeated manner of operation. While the preamble is read in the context of the entire claim, here the preamble does not limit the body of the claim or provide further claim limitation. See MPEP 2111.02. Thus, the body of the claim does not appear to have limitations reflecting that the scoring and sending of the MME score is done over time or in a way to continuously update of the ACD system.
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 1-6 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four categories of statutory subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In Applicant’s case, the claims pass Step 1.
However, for Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility test, independent claim 1 for example recites an abstract idea of calculating a score from received information about an agent’s handling of multiple concurrent multi-channel interactions with customers, providing the score and adjusting the agent’s attributes based on the score. The limitations that recite an abstract idea are indicated in bold below:
A computerized-method for identifying and utilizing effectiveness of handling multiple concurrent multi-channel interactions of agents, the computerized-method comprising: in a computerized system comprising a processor, one or more applications, a data storage of interactions and a data storage of agents, and a memory to store the data storages, said processor is configured to continuously operate a Multiple Multi-Channel Effectiveness (MME) module for each agent in the data storage of agents, said operating of said MME module comprising:
operating an interaction module to retrieve one or more concurrent interactions of an agent from the data storage of interactions, according to a time range;
calculating an MME score for the agent based on metadata of the one or more concurrent interactions, wherein the MME score indicates an ability of the agent to handle multiple multi-channel interactions simultaneously, wherein the metadata of the one or more concurrent interactions includes at least one of: customers sentiment, start time of interaction, end time of interaction, and channel type, andwherein the calculating of the MME Score (MMES) is based on formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
40
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
whereby:
N is a total number of multiple concurrent multi-channel interactions handled. by the agent,
PNG
media_image2.png
34
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
61
79
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein
Ti effective equals which is an effective time taken to handle multiple concurrent multi- channel interactions,
whereby:
Ti is start time of interaction,
Tf is end time of interaction,
T is a total time taken to complete N concurrent interactions,
wherein
PNG
media_image4.png
24
213
media_image4.png
Greyscale
whereby:
Wi is a weighting factor of each channel type of the multiple concurrent multi-channel interactions,
N is a total number of multiple concurrent multi-channel interactions handled by the agent:
storing the calculated MME score in the data storage of agents;
sending the MME score to an Automated Call Distribution (ACD) system to change attributes of routing skills of each agent in the data storage of agents, and route N multiple concurrent multi-channel interactions to agents having MME score above a predefined threshold to reduce an average time of each interaction in the interaction, thus improving the routing of the ACD system, and
wherein the changed attributes of routing skills are related to expertise level of the agent based on the MME score of the agent, which is an indication of agent handling N multiple concurrent multi-channel interactions effectively; and
The limitations of calculating and providing a score of an agent’s performance and adjusting expertise level attributes of the agent based on the score fall under the abstract idea subject matter grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity because determining how well an agent handles interactions with customers and making adjustments to skills based on such determinations relates to customer service and therefore the sub-grouping of commercial interactions including business relations and the sub-grouping of managing relationships or interactions between people (i.e., between agents and customers in this case). The limitations also fall under the abstract idea subject matter grouping of mental processes because but for the recitation of generic computer components a person can calculate a score based on information received, provide the result and decide on/make a change to an attribute based on the score. Also, the specific formula for calculating the score falls under the abstract idea subject matter grouping of mathematical concepts. The performance of the claim limitations using a computerized system does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. For example, in the TLI Communications decision, the court noted that even though a claim may recite concrete, tangible components, these components do not exclude the claim from the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry (See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC No. 15-1372 (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016)).
For Step 2A Prong Two of the subject matter eligibility test, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of a computerized system comprising a processor, application, data storage, memory and module to implement the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea based on MPEP 2106.05(f). Merely using a computer as a tool can be found in Applicant’s additional elements and functions associated with the computerized system retrieving information from data storage, calculating a score by formula, storing a score in data storage, and sending a score to an ACD system. See MPEP 2106.05(f) regarding mere instructions to implement on a computer and merely using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity including MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)(i) regarding remotely accessing user-specific information through a generic interface (similar to Applicant’s retrieving information from data storage) with respect to Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘002 patent), MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) regarding use of a computer in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks such as receiving, storing and transmitting data (similar to Applicant’s storing and sending) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)i. regarding a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer (similar to Applicant’s calculating a score by mathematical formula), Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). In addition, the automated call distribution (ACD) system or application is recited at a high-level of generality for having a score sent to it and for the intended use of changing attributes of an agent based on the scoring and for routing interactions to agents based on the scoring, but does not reflect that any computer operations are improved or any existing technology is improved. For example, the claim conveys changing attributes “by a computer” which is insufficient as the computer is not integral but rather merely used as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process which can be interpreted as updating data. Instead, an improvement appears to be in the realm of abstract ideas with the calculating of the score from received information, providing the score and adjusting the agent’s attributes based on the score thus identifying which agents should handle multiple concurrent multi-channel interactions. It is noted that the score is sent to the ACD system for the purpose of changing attributes and routing interactions; however, the changing and routing are not claimed as positive steps or functions within the scope of the claims.
Thus, the generic computer elements recited at a high-level of generality do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Also, the recitation of the ACD system as the application to which the calculated score is sent and which takes the follow-up action of changing attributes based on the calculated score amounts to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For example, the calculated score could be sent to a different type of application perhaps associated with human resources for follow-up actions. The limiting to the ACD system or application does not reflect a particular technical improvement similar to the reasoning behind the additional elements in Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC which limited the wireless delivery of regional broadcast content to cellular telephones as opposed to any and all electronic devices (see MPEP 2106.05(h) regarding Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and which also lacked details as to how the delivery was accomplished (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)iii. regarding Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262-63, 120 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional element of operating an interaction module to retrieve one or more concurrent interactions of an agent from the data storage of interactions, according to a time range amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity based on MPEP 2106.05(g). For example, MPEP 2106.05(g) reference a limitation from CyberSource and indicate that mere data gathering or obtaining of information (i.e., pre-solution activity) so that the information can be analyzed in order to make a determination can be considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Here, Applicant’s retrieving of interactions aligns with this data collection reference to CyberSource because the limitation also serves the purpose of obtaining data for analysis and determinations. The steps of sending the score after it is calculated and changing attributes using the score after it is calculated can also be considered insignificant post-solution activity based on MPEP 2106.05(g) with reference to output of a report of fraudulent transactions and the reasoning in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978) in which the step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was deemed post-solution activity that did not transform an abstract idea into patentable subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements of the claim individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea nor do they reflect a particular improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Rather, the collective computer components as a whole reflect the concept of “apply it on a computer”.
Regarding Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. For the pre-solution step of retrieving from data storage and the post-solution steps of sending the score to the ACD are considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, these have been reevaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network identified in Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), buySAFE, In. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)iii. Electronic recordkeeping identified in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining “shadow” accounts) and Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory identified in Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)ii supports the conclusion that a computer employed for one of its basic functions of performing calculations at a high-level of generality, as reflected in Applicant’s claim with calculating the MME score, is well understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 regarding recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values) and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Applicant’s drawings and disclosure further indicate that a generic computer/system is invoked for its basic functionality (see e.g., Fig. 1A, paragraph [0032] – computerized system including a processor, applications, data storage and memory). Based on the reasons presented, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims include the limitations of the independent claim and therefore recite the same abstract idea. Accordingly, the analysis and rationale discussed above regarding the independent claim and abstract idea also apply to the dependent claims. Also, the dependent claims further limit the abstract idea to a narrower abstract idea by further describing actions after the scoring and sending to include providing a reward to an agent (claim 3) based on a threshold or pre-defined range (claim 4) and assigning coaching (claim 6). Such narrowing creates a narrower abstract idea but does not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Additional elements recited in the dependent claims include generic processing components/functionality recited at a high-level of generality and which generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., sending the score to particular applications including a gamification application (claim 2) and a quality management application (claim 5) and operating in a cloud computing environment (claim 11)). As discussed above, limitations that amount to merely using a computer as a tool (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) are not indicative of integration into a practical application nor indicative of an inventive concept. These additional elements alone and in combination do not impose any meaningful limits as they collectively reflect the concept of “apply it on a computer”.
Claims 12-17 recite limitations similar to those recited in claims 1-6 and 11 and therefore the same analysis above with respect to claims 1-6 and 11 also applies to these claims.
Applicant’s claims are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BETH V BOSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6737. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4:30PM.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625