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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office action is in reply to the Applicant amendment filed on 26 January 2026.
2. Claims 1, 9, 17 have been amended.
3. Claims 1-5, 9-13, 17-20, and 22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
This application is in condition for allowance except for the presence of Claims 6-8 and 14-16 directed to an invention non-elected with traverse in the reply filed on 06 February 2023. Applicant is given TWO MONTHS from the date of this letter to cancel the noted claims or take other appropriate action (37 CFR 1.144 ). Failure to take action during this period will be treated as authorization to cancel the noted claims by Examiner’s Amendment and pass the case to issue. Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted since this application will be passed to issue.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 9-13, 17-20, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities: Withdrawn and non-elected Claims 6-8 and 14-16 would need to be listed as “Cancelled” in an after Final response for a notice of allowability. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 26 January 2026 are persuasive as seen and detailed below. However, for this application to be in condition for allowance, withdrawn and non-elected Claims 6-8 and 14-16 would need to be listed as “Cancelled” in an after Final response.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for an abstract idea (judicial exception) and 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejection, the current claim amendments have overcome these rejections.
The present invention is directed to a system and computer implemented method for performing quality assurance.
The closest prior art, Geffen et al. (Geffen) (US 2011/0007889) in view of Lyerly et al. (Lyerly) (US 2007/0198329) are analogous art of Quality Monitoring/Call Recording; customer centers. However, Geffen in view of Lyerly alone or in combination do not teach:
“in a system comprising a computer processor and an automated caller dialer (ACD), an interaction manager coupled to the ACD, an interaction data indexer, and a screen recorder, wherein the ACD is to route a plurality of voice over internet protocol (VoIP) interactions to agents based on input by customers participating in the VoIP interactions, and wherein the screen recorder is to record VoIP interaction data from one or more of the VoIP interactions and interaction metadata to generate recorded interactions, wherein the interaction data indexer is to index the metadata and store the metadata in an interaction index, wherein the VoIP interaction data comprise a plurality of data packets, wherein the data packets are sent over a session initiation protocol (SIP) and are streamed in real time and wherein the metadata is generated by the interaction manager and contains details about the interaction:
generating by a quality planner service a plurality of quality plans, wherein each quality plan comprises a plurality of evaluators, and a predetermined threshold value, by, for each quality plan:
selecting evaluation tasks related to one or more recorded interactions for the quality plan by applying one or more filters to the metadata of one or more of the recorded interactions, the filters selecting evaluation tasks that match criteria of a plurality of evaluators, wherein one or more of the evaluation tasks comprises replaying one or more of the recorded interactions, and wherein the evaluation tasks are described using one or more JavaScript object notation (JSON) entities;
applying additional filters to select more evaluation tasks for the quality plan [[if]] based on the number of selected evaluation tasks [[is]] being less than an expected number of evaluation tasks, wherein the additional filters are identified by a brute force algorithm, the brute force algorithm comprising, for each filter of the additional filters:
calculating, by the processor, a filtered number of interactions returned for an addition of the filter; and
if the filtered number of interactions for the addition of the filter is greater than a quota of interactions for the quality plan, applying the filter;
if the filtered number of interactions for the addition of the filter is less than the quota of interactions for the quality plan, adding the filter to a list of restrictive filters; and
displaying the list of restrictive filters on a graphical interface;
based on the quality plan, fetching the recorded interaction data from the interaction index, distributing by a plan scheduler interaction data to the plurality of evaluators, and collecting by an evaluation service evaluation answers from evaluators;
automatically correcting the plurality of quality plans during runtime of the plurality of quality plans by:
fetching by the quality planner service the plurality of quality plans; calculating an off-track percentage of the fetched quality plans by comparing the expected number of evaluation tasks to a number of actual completed evaluation tasks for a period of time;
sorting the plurality of quality plans based on the off-track percentage of the quality plans;
selecting a quality plan with the highest off-track percentage;
forecasting, by the processor, for each first evaluator, wherein the first evaluator is part of the quality plan with the highest off-track percentage, an expected number of evaluation tasks completed per period, wherein the expected number of evaluation tasks completed per period is computed based on historical completed evaluation tasks and a forecasted evaluation task completion rate;
for each first evaluator, reassigning, by the processor, one or more evaluation tasks from the first evaluator to a new evaluator if a difference between a number of actual evaluation tasks completed during a set time period and the forecasted number of evaluation tasks for said first evaluator does not meet the predetermined threshold value, wherein the reassigning includes transmitting an interaction's data to the new evaluator, and wherein the reassigning includes using an adjustable buffer, wherein the buffer is an added percentage of the number of actual evaluation tasks completed during the set time period added to the number of actual evaluation tasks completed during the set time period; and
sending a notification to the first evaluator and to the new evaluator that a reassignment occurred”
as recited in independent Claims 1, 9, and 17.
The instant application has been previously indicated not statutory under 35 USC 101 due to January 2019 Revised Patent Eligibility Subject Matter guidance. Due to the above amendments, the claims are now allowable as reciting statutory subject matter and the rejection is withdrawn because the first part of the analysis under step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility test with determining if there is an abstract idea that the claims are recited to, and passes step 1 of the § 101 subject matter eligibility test outlined in the Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, pages 74618 – 74633 as system and method claims having proper computer architecture support.
The second part deals with determining if the entirety of the claim is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s process of “performing quality assurance” is significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Step 2A (Prong 1):
The claims as a whole do not fall under any of the mathematical concepts, mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity groupings per step 2A (Prong 1) of the January 2019 revised patent eligibility subject matter guidance. Therefore, Claims 1-5, 9-13, 17-20, and 22 are eligible in step 2A prong one.
Regarding Step 2A (Prong 2) and Step 2B:
Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements that integrate the judicial exception into a Practical Application? Assuming arguendo that the claims recite an abstract idea, Examiner notes that the claims now meaningfully integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and thus is significantly more. This additional elements of “processor; automated caller dialer; interaction data indexer; screen recorder; filters; brute force algorithm” (see MPEP § 2106.05 (e)) or the combination of additional elements in Claims 1-5, 9-13, 17-20, and 22 rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
These claims were found to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of a method of organizing human activity to the practical application. Therefore, Claims 1-5, 9-13, 17-20, and 22 meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and thus is significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Konig et al. (US 2018/0159982)
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights