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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filled on 12/26/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9, 11 and 19 have been amended by Applicant.
Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
- Response to Amendments / Arguments -
Applicant’s 12/26/2025 amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection in this action.
- Response to Applicant’s rebuttal arguments on the double patenting rejection -
Remarks 12/16/2025 p.13 ¶2 admits that McConnell et al, US 10623233 B1, discloses
automatically determining optimal times to initiate coaching sessions based on conditions including: (i) a supervisor available to administer a coaching session and (ii) agent idle time, and also admits that Anthony J. Dezonno US 7110526 B1, detects when the center is having too many agents, as criterion to reassign agents. Yet, Remarks 12/16/2025 p.13 ¶2 still contests McConnell and Dezonno do not teach or suggest, a larger than needed workforce as criteria for scheduling a coaching session for an agent who performs the same activities, or automatically schedul[ing] coaching for the identified agents in a way that does not impact the performance of the call center.
Examiner fully considered the argument but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive by first pointing to ¶7.37.02 as cited by MPEP 707.07(f) stating: one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck &Co. 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner also reminds the Applicant that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871(CCPA 1981). Here, McConnell et al, US 10623233 B1 discloses a field of endeavor that deals with monitoring and management of agents within a contact center, to
- “automatically schedule a coaching session during hours in which a workforce that performs the same activities as the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching…” (McConnell column 37 lines 2-15: automatically determine optimal times to initiate coaching sessions with agent instances. The embodiments allow end-user network 320 to provide one or more conditions to management network 300, which uses the conditions to (i) determine whether a supervisor instance from end-user network 320 is available to administer a coaching session, (ii) determine segments of idle time for agent instances on end-user network 320, and (iii) initiate coaching sessions during the identified idle time segments, either to individual agent instances or groups of agent instances. This saves end-user network 320 time and resources, as there is no longer a need to allocate auxiliary agent instances and the challenge of having to pre-schedule/cancel coaching sessions at various times is resolved).
While McConnell recognizes the need to automatically schedule coaching session, as an example of reassignment of the agent or groups of agents from current activities, during idle time to a coaching session, McConnell nevertheless is not going as far to explicitly label such idle group of agents as larger than needed as explicitly recited at independent Claims 1,9,11,19
Yet, Dezonno in analogous management of agents in a call center teaches or suggests:
- “workforce” “larger than needed” (Dezonno Claim 28: automatic call distributor matching a group having too many agents with a group having not enough agents and transferring an agent with appropriate qualifications from the group having too many agents to the group having not enough agents. Claim 29: determine whether to reassign agents by matching a group having too many agents with a group having not enough agents and transferring an agent with appropriate qualifications from the group having too many agents to the group having not enough agents based upon training of the neural network, the respective group status of the agent groups and at least one of the operating parameters)
Thus here, each of McConnell and Dezonno recite an analogous art of managing agents, with McConnell recognizing the need to automatically schedule coaching session, as an example of reassignment of agents group from current activities, during idle time to a coaching session, yet with McConnell not going so far to explicitly label such idle group of agents as “larger than needed” as explicitly recited at independent Claims 1,9,11,19. To address such lapse, Examiner relied on Dezonno who explicitly taught above the reassignment of the group of agents, akin to the ones disclosed by McConnell supra, as being “larger than needed”. Examiner found that each and both McConnell and Dezonno teach, along with Claims 1-20 of US Patent US 11238415 B2, an analogous field of endeavor relating to the monitoring and reassignment of agents in a call center and, that each are reasonable pertinent to the problem of agent monitoring and assignment that the current inventor aims at solving. McConnell provides the basis for “automatically schedule a coaching session” for an idle group of agents, while Dezonno comes with a clarification that the idle group of agents are “larger than needed”, as two concepts complementary to each other, as tested under MPEP 2143. Moreover, the benefit of having added Dezonno’s teachings would have been to provide a more rigorous modeling (Dezonno column 6 lines 37-46), as an example of teaching, suggestion or motivation, tested per MPEP 2143 G, resulting in a better management of agents without overwhelming them, that would have further reinforced the benefit of such teaching, suggestion or motivation as revealed by Dezonno column 2 lines 15-20 in view of MPEP 2143 F and/or G for the benefit of McConnell, along with Claims 1-20 of US 11238415 B2.
Additionally, or alternatively, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in similar work monitoring management field of endeavor. In such combination, each element above would have merely performed same analytical and managerial function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as revealed above, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have also been predictable (MPEP 2143 A). Examiner takes this opportunity to remind the Applicant that the test of obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but rather, what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art1. Given the preponderance of factual and legal evidence articulated above, the obviousness of the issue at hand, namely that the idle group of agents (McConnell supra) are complementary to a number of agents “larger than needed” (Dezonno supra), and the general knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skills in the art , the Examiner concludes that the limitation of “automatically schedule a coaching session during hours in which a workforce that performs the same activities as the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching is larger than needed” as contested by Applicant at Remarks 12/16/2025 p.12 ¶4 is rendered obvious by the prior art.
Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the Applicant’s argument above is unpersuasive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Response to Applicant’s rebuttal arguments on 35 USC 112(b) rejection -
Remarks 12/16/2025 p.13 ¶4-¶5 states that Applicant amended the claims in accordance with Examiner’s recommendations at Non-Final Act 06/26/2025 p.19-p.20 and thus the 35 USC 112(b) rejections should be withdrawn. Examiner confirms such amendment as solving the identified 35 USC 112(b) issues and thus withdraws the 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
- Response to Applicant’s rebuttal arguments on 35 USC 101 rejection -
Subject matter eligibility argument 2:
First, as stated by Remarks 12/16/2025 p.14 ¶4-p.15 ¶1, Applicant changed the contested “wherein” clause to an active step: “execute the ACD on the supervisor device and on the server”.
Second, Remarks 12/16/2025 p.15 ¶2, argues that the improvement test is met because the Specification makes the distinction between the server and the supervisor device by executing the ACD [automatic call distributor] on both components - where the server handles centralized processing (automatic updating adherence data/scheduling a coaching session/continually monitoring agents, and the like), while the supervisor device generates scheduled activities/times and facilitates coaching session management (by canceling/rescheduling coaching sessions automatically schedule by the server). Applicant argues that such division of labor would have been readily understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to allow each device to handle appropriate loads of appropriate tasks and thus, improve the computing system’s efficiency.
Third, Remarks 12/16/2025 p.15 ¶3, argues this improvement reduces computational load per device, as improvement to a field of computer technology that does not fall within fundamental economic principles, commercial interactions and/or managing relationships or interactions between people to constitute organizing human activities as the prior act stated.
Remarks 12/16/2025 p.15 ¶4-p.16 ¶1 argues unlike Fairwarning, as relied by Non-Final Act 06/26/2025, Applicant argues the improvement is not limited to data manipulation, but to reallocating workloads to the computing devices that execute data processing to improve their efficiency. Unlike Myriad, as relied by Non-Final Act 06/26/2025, Applicant argues there is no allegation of the inventive impact being groundbreaking, but simply as improvement in computer technology. Also, unlike TLI Communications, as relied by Non-Final Act 06/26/2025, Applicant argues that the claimed improvement does not merely use a computing network, but provides an inventive division of labor distributed among computing device resources that improves the efficiency of the computing system. Finally, Applicant argues that the device configuration in Affinity Labs, as case law cited by Examiner at Non-Final Act 06/26/2025, is not the inventive arrangement and particularly lacks the distributed benefit claimed in the present application.
Remarks 12/16/2025 p.16 ¶2 argues that similar to the improvement in the "distribution of software" in a network, found eligible in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC, 772 Fed. Appx. 890, 2019 U.S.P.Q.2d 190276 (Fed Cir. 2019), "Uniloc"), the present claims recite a particular improvement in how this is done, namely a specific division of labor between the server and supervisor device.
Remarks 12/16/2025 p.16 ¶3 cites SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 Fed Cir 2019, to argue that analyzing network packets using distributed processes spanning multiple machines cannot practically be performed in the mind and thus is not mental process.
Examiner fully considered the subject matter eligibility argument 2 but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive by reincorporating herein all findings and rationales at Non-Final Act 06/26/2025p.5 ¶3-p.8 ¶2. Examiner further relies on Applicant’s own admission that the claims recite, division of labor between the “supervisor device” and the “server” as repeatedly stated throughout Remarks 12/16/2025 p.14 ¶2, p.15 ¶2, p.16 ¶1-¶2. For example, Remarks 12/16/2025 p.14 ¶2, explains such division of labor as: (A) the server receiving start and stop times from agent devices and accordingly determining and automatically updating adherence/conformance data; while (B) the supervisor device focuses on schedule generation by assigning timeframes for scheduled activities (e.g., calls). Yet, Examiner finds that such division of labor in (A) monitoring agent times and determining their associated adherence/conformance, and (B) schedule generation, rescheduling or canceling, remains integral to the fundamental labor or economic practices or principles of Certain methods of organizing human activities with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A ¶2 explaining that the term fundamental is not used in the sense of necessarily being old or well-known, but rather as a building block of modern economy. Here, the division of labor, between: A) agent times and associated adherence/conformance, and (B) schedule generations, as asserted by Applicant at Remarks 12/16/2025 p.14 ¶2, then repeatedly mentioned at Remarks 12/16/2025 p.15 ¶2, p.16 ¶1-¶2 remains such a building block of modern economy ineligible for patent protection, with the use of the “supervisor device” and the “server” components to perform the division of labor, representing mere tools [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #3], or computer environment [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #2] upon which the abstract division of labor is being performed. Even when more granularly tested as additional computer-based elements, the “supervisor device” and “server” would have been merely used or applied to perform the aforementioned abstract practice [MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i)] as invocation of computers components or machinery as tools to perform existing or abstract processes which do not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. Thus here, any benefit, in the division of labor for task or call distribution, as raised by Applicant at Remarks 12/16/2025 p.15 ¶3, would be an abstract benefit resulting from the division of the aforementioned abstract functions of: A) monitoring agent times and determining associated adherence/conformance, and (B) schedule generations on staffing forecasts and the agent’s scheduling preferences, and subsequent rescheduling or canceling the agent's coaching session. Such division benefit of the “supervisor device” not having to (A) monitor agent times and determine associated adherence/conformance, and the “server” components not having to schedule generations on staffing forecasts and the agent’s scheduling preferences, etc., as argued above at Remarks 12/16/2025 p.15, ¶2-¶3, in the reduction in computational load per device, would ensue from the distributed execution of the aforementioned abstract functions, among: said “server” components(A) and the “supervisor device” (B), not from an actual improvement in the efficiency of the computer system itself or actual technology as alleged by Applicant at Remarks 12/16/2025 p.15, ¶2-¶3. This finding is crucial since, per MPEP 2106.05(a) II ¶2 improvement in the abstract idea is not improvement in actual technology.
Examiner also responds to Remarks 12/16/2025 p.15 last ¶-p.16 ¶1, to clarify that the Non-Final Act 06/26/2025 p.8 ¶2 did not merely rely on FairWarning IP,LLC v Iatric Sys., Inc, 839 F.3d 1089,120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed Cir 2016) to simply make a case for data manipulation and attribute it to the current claims, but rather to stress that in FairWarning, the accessing, compiling and combining of data from disparate information sources to generate a full picture of a user's activity, identity, frequency of activity, and the like in a computer environment, were found to represent a concept of merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and announcement which, was ruled, by the Federal Circuit, to recite the abstract exception. Here, such disparate information sources are argued by Applicant throughout the Remarks 12/16/2025
as: (A) the “server” and (B), the “supervisor device”. In a similar vein, the ineligible compiling and combining of data are reflected here in the division or reallocating of workloads (i.e. adherence / conformance determination, schedule generations etc.). Finally the ineligible generating of a full picture of a user’s activity, identity, frequency of activity, and the like in a computer environment is set forth by determin[ing] if any of the one or more agents requires coaching based on: a comparison of the adherence data to a goal amount of occurrences of a goal amount of adherence, and a comparison of the conformance data to a goal amount of occurrences of a goal amount of conformance; as recited at independent Claim 1 and similarly recited at Claims 9,11,19.
Examiner also notes Applicant’s statement at Remarks 12/16/2025 p.16 ¶1, 2nd sentence, that unlike Myriad, as cited by Non-Final Act 06/26/2025 p.7, the Applicant did not allege the inventive impact as groundbreaking, but rather as improving computer technology. Examiner responds by clarifying that Non-Final Act 06/26/2025 p.7 relied upon Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979, as cited by MPEP 2106.04 I, to caution that a benefit or improvement in the abstract idea is not an improvement in actual technology or the computer itself.
Examiner further notes that Remarks 12/16/2025 p.16 ¶1, relegates TLI Communications, as mere use a computing network, but fails to rebut, in TLI Communications, the resemblance between use of a server and telephone unit, in performing of economic or other tasks to receive, store, or transmit data, as cited by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) at Non-Final Act 06/26/2025 p.6 ¶3, and the analogous use of a “server” and “supervisor device” in the purported division of labor of Remarks 12/16/2025. Since MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) has established that the combined use of a server and a telephone unit, in performing economic or other tasks to receive, store, or transmit data2, did not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application, the Examiner reasons that here, the analogous use of a “server” and “supervisor device” in the purported division of labor would similarly not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. A similar argument was made by Examiner at Non-Final Act 06/26/2025 p.6 ¶3 and contested here by Applicant at Remarks 12/16/2025 p.16 ¶1 as lacking the distributed benefit.
Examiner also notes that Remarks 12/16/2025 p.16 ¶2 cites Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC, 772 Fed. Appx. 890, 2019 U.S.P.Q.2d 190276 (Fed Cir. 2019), where the Court allegedly held that distribution of software in a network, to accomplish centralized software distribution in an unconventional matter was improvement in technology. Here however, the distribution is not that of software but that of abstract labor components, namely: (A) determined adherence / conformance and (B) schedule generations, as identified by Applicant and tested by Examiner above. Therefore here, the current claims do not provide an analogous technological improvement similar to the one in Uniloc supra, but rather an entrepreneurial or abstract one.
Examiner also notes Remarks 12/16/2025 p.16 ¶3 cites SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019) to argue that analyzing network packets using distributed processes spanning multiple machines cannot practically be performed in the human mind and does not constitute a mental process. Examiner adopts a similar rationale as articulated above, by stating that here, the distribution is not that of network packets by use of use of network monitors as in SRI supra, but rather of abstract labor components, namely: (A) determined adherence / conformance and (B) schedule generations, as tested above. Thus here, the current claims do not provide an analogous non-abstract distribution of network packets by use of use of network monitors, as was the case in SRI supra, but rather as an entrepreneurial or abstract one.
In conclusion, Examiner asserts that the above findings and rationales have provided a preponderance of legal evidence showing that the claims still recite, describe or at a minimum set forth the abstract exception, with the level of computerization, as argued by Applicant above, incapable to raise to the additional elements to a level that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical appclaition, and for the same reason, also incapable to provide significantly more. Therefore, the claims remain patent ineligible, and the argument is unpersuasive.
- Response to Applicant’s rebuttal arguments on 35 USC 103 rejection -
Prior art argument I (1): Remarks 12/16/2025 p.18 ¶2 points to the limitation:
(1) “for one or more of the agents that have been scheduled for the coaching session, automatically cancel the coaching session if an amount of nonadherence days during a predetermined subsequent period of time is less than a first predetermined threshold” to argue that Minnich et al US 20090164289 A1 only requests removal of the violation but does not “cancel the coaching session” as recited at independent Claims 1,9,11,19.
Examiner fully considered argument I.(1) but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive by first noting that the argued limitation “for one or more of the agents that have been scheduled for the coaching session, automatically cancel the coaching session if an amount of nonadherence days during a predetermined subsequent period of time is less than a first predetermined threshold” is a contingent limitation, as evidenced by the “if” clause.
In such contingent situations, MPEP 2111.04 II ¶1 is clear that: “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”.
Here, since method Claims 11,19 may be practiced when the following condition is not happening: “if an amount of nonadherence days based on the amount of time not in adherence during a predetermined subsequent period of time is less than during a first predetermined threshold”, then its underlining “automatically canceling the coaching session” step can be argued as not required to be performed based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of MPEP 2111.04 II. Thus, Argument I (1) on claims 11,19 can be argued as moot right from onset.
Second, and separate from the first point made just above, the Examiner also notes that while Applicant admits, at Remarks 12/16/2025 p.18 ¶2-¶3, that Minnich teaches removal of violation, the Applicant still stresses on the distinction between removal of the violation itself and removal or cancel[ing] of the coaching session. Examiner points to MPEP 2111.05 B, 2nd sentence to remind the Applicant that the inquiry into patentable weight may arise in situations where the claim is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human. Here, the argued canceling or removal of the “coaching session” or violation, as a content, message, meaning, or lack thereof, to a human reader (i.e. agent supervisor etc.) can be argued as such an instance of limited patentable weight. This is because, no matter which of the above message or content is being canceled, both the cancelation disclosed by Minnich, and the cancelation recited in the current claims, are the result of the agent not reaching an acute level of nonconformance or violations number, and thus not needing correction, rectification or coaching.
Also, in addition to the above finding, the Examiner also stresses that Minnichu does not only teach removal of the violation in vacuum, but also provides at Minnichu ¶ [0037] 5th-6th sentences, the reason for requesting such removal of the schedule violation. In such a context, the removal of the violation based on its underlining reason, can be argued to teach or at a minimum suggest the removal or “canceling” of “the coaching session”
To further consolidate such obviousness rationale, Examiner also points ¶7.37.02, as cited by MPEP 707.07(f) stating: one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck &Co. 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Also, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871(CCPA 1981). Here, the concept of canceling coaching sessions was already identified, as being taught by McConnell et al, US 10623233 B1 column 37 lines 2-15, emphasis on Id. lines 14-15, albeit not resulting from the level of nonadherence or violation being below an unacceptable level, that is; “if an amount of nonadherence days based on the amount of time not in adherence during a predetermined subsequent period of time is less than during a first predetermined threshold” as claimed at each of independent Claims 1,9,11,19.
To address this concept of benchmarking the nonadherence or violation above or below an unacceptable level, that is; “if an amount of nonadherence days based on the amount of time not in adherence during a predetermined subsequent period of time is less than during a first predetermined threshold” as claimed at each Claims 1,9,11,19, Examiner points to Minnich et al, US 20090164289 A1 showing at ¶ [0023] 2nd sentence: The schedule violation count may include the total number of schedule violations [interpreted as nonadherence] made by the agent 132 during a recent time period, such as during the previous 90 days. ¶ [0025] 3rd sentence: the determination may occur periodically such as, for example, once per day, once per work shift, once per scheduled time interval, or continuously. ¶ [0026] 3rd-4th sentences: if the threshold is 5 minutes, and the agent is 4 minutes late, the schedule violation may be considered to be less than [a first] threshold. Alternatively, for example, if the threshold is 5 minutes, and the agent is 6 minutes late, the schedule violation may be considered to be greater than threshold. In alternative embodiment, the CCM 124 may determine whether the schedule violation is greater than the threshold plus a constant value (e.g. 2 minutes). This results at Minnich ¶ [0042] last sentence with the CCM [call center monitor] 124 removing the schedule violation from the agent record.
Thus, Examiner provided a preponderance of factual and legal evidence to show that the prior art teaches or at least suggests canceling the coaching session as contested by Applicant above.
Accordingly, the Applicant’s Arguments I (1) above is found unpersuasive.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior art arguments I (2): Remarks 12/16/2025 p.18 ¶4-p.19 ¶1 points to the limitation:
(2) “continually monitor one or more of the agents that have been scheduled for the coaching session”; to argue that Minnich et al US 20090164289 A1
(2) does not monitor if a violation metric improved at all, let alone compare “amount of nonadherence days” during sequential time periods, at Claims 1,9,11,19.
Examiner fully considered argument i. (2) but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive.
McConnell US 10623233 B1 column 38 lines 37-44 already provided basis for agent coaching
Minnich et al US 20090164289 A1 further adds considerations for continually monitoring at
¶ [0023] 2nd sentence: The schedule violation count may include the total number of schedule violations made by the agent 132 during a recent time period, such as during the previous 90 days. (bolded emphasis added) ¶ [0025] 3rd sentence: the determination may occur periodically such as, for example, once per day, once per work shift, once per scheduled time interval, or continuously. (bolded emphasis added). For example, at ¶ [0026] 3rd-4th sentences: if the threshold is 5 minutes, and the agent is 4 minutes late, the schedule violation may be considered to be less than threshold. Alternatively, for example, if the threshold is 5 minutes, and the agent is 6 minutes late, the schedule violation may be considered to be greater than threshold. In alternative embodiment, the CCM 124 may determine whether the schedule violation is greater than the threshold plus a constant value (e.g., 2 minutes). ¶ [0028] 3rd sentence: The schedule violation information may further include a violation ID (i.e., a unique identifier associated with the schedule violation), a time stamp, break details, an amount of time over the threshold, and other details about the schedule violation. ¶ [0038] 2nd sentence: For each schedule violation made by the agent 132, the individual violation status web page 270 includes information about the type of schedule violation, a time of occurrence, a description, how the schedule violation count of the agent 132 is affected by the schedule violation, and a link to request removal of the schedule violation from the agent record.
Thus, the continuous or periodic monitoring of the violation count may include the total number of schedule violations made by the agent, as taught by Minnich ¶ [0023] 2nd sentence, ¶ [0025] 3rd sentence, ¶ [0028] 3rd sentence, ¶ [0038] 2nd sentence teaches or suggests “violation count may include the total number of schedule violations” as contested by Applicant above.
Accordingly, the Applicant’s Argument I (2) above is also found unpersuasive.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior art Argument II: Remarks 12/16/2025 p.19 ¶4-p.20 ¶3 argues the prior art does not teach the dual monitoring namely:
- (1) “determine and automatically update, for the one or more agents, adherence data and conformance data, wherein the adherence data comprises, for each of one or more scheduled activities during a date range, an amount of time in adherence or an amount of time not in adherence”..
- (2) “continually monitor one or more of the agents that have been scheduled for the coaching session, with the second monitoring level being that of a metric, that is “if an amount of nonadherence days... during a predetermined subsequent period of time is less than during a first predetermined threshold” that is based on the first level’s monitoring metric, that is “based on the amount of time not in adherence” as recited at independent Claims 1,9,11,19).
Examiner relies on Ouimette; Jason P US 10171663 B1 to teach or suggests:
- (1) “determine and automatically update, for the one or more agents, adherence data and conformance data, wherein the adherence data comprises, for each of one or more scheduled activities during a date range, an amount of time in adherence or an amount of time not in adherence”.
(Ouimette Fig.12, column 28 lines 52-56, column 29 lines 3-7: communication handler 155 invokes real-time tracking module to track agent real-time compliance with THTs for the communication and updating statistics for agent accordingly. Examiner reads adherence in light of Original Specification ¶ [05] to include but not limited to, comparison of scheduled to actual start and stop times or duration. Examiner reads conformance in light of Original Specification
¶ [013] 2nd sentence to include but not limited to an aggregate measure such as percent adherence or non-adherence instances. Based on this claim construction
Ouimette teaches at column 1 lines 59-61: where a contact center monitor whether the AHT for calls taken by its agents > [target handle time] THT of 5 minutes. column 3 lines 12-15: Here, a difference is determined between actual handle time [AHT] and target handle time [THT] or revised target handle time and communication is tagged if the difference > threshold. Fig.11 step 1145, column 27 lines 34-36, 54-63: Thus, tagging module determines whether the difference is greater than the threshold in Operation 1145. Therefore, the tagging module determines whether the actual handle time for the reason was greater or less than the [target handle time] THT in Operation 1155. An actual handle time > THT indicates the agent took more time than allocated to handle the communication for the particular reason. Thus the tagging module tags the communication as out of conformance with respect to adhering to the [target handle time] THT by having an actual handle time significantly greater than the THT in Operation 1160. Also, column 29 lines 41-54: At this point, the real-time tracking module determines the difference between the actual handle time and the THT in Operation 1235 and determines in Operation 1240 if the difference is greater than a threshold, similar to the tagging module previously discussed. If the difference is not greater than the threshold, then the real-time tracking module updates statistics for the agent in Operation 1245 to reflect the agent's conforming performance on the communication with respect to actual handle time for the particular reason. Yet, if the difference > threshold, then the communication involves an instance in which the agent was non-conforming with respect to actual handle time for the particular reason. column 29 line 63- column 30 line 1: Thus, the real-time tracking module determines in Operation 1250 if the actual handle time is greater than the THT. As previously stated, an actual handle time greater than the THT indicates the agent took more time than was allotted to handle the reason for the communication and therefore, was non-conformant. While the opposite is true when the actual handle time is less than the THT. Here, the agent took too little of the time that was allotted to handle the reason for the communication therefore, was non-conformant.
Ouimette column 33 lines 14-23 the pop-up GUG 1510 provides the % calls overall, and for each reason, in which the agent was considered in conformance with respect to adhering to the THT, % calls in which the agent was considered out of conformance with respect to adhering to the THT by having an actual handle time significantly greater than the THT, and the % of calls in which the agent was considered out of conformance with respect to adhering to the THT by having an actual handle time significantly less than the THT)
Examiner further relies on Minnich et al US 20090164289 A1 to teach or suggests:
(2) “continually monitor one or more of the agents” based on a metric benchmarking, that is, “if an amount of nonadherence days... during a predetermined subsequent period of time is less than during a first predetermined threshold” that is based on the first level’s monitoring metric, that is “based on the amount of time not in adherence” (independent Claims 1,9,11,19).
Minnich ¶ [0023] 2nd sentence: The schedule violation count may include the total number of schedule violations made by the agent 132 during a recent time period, such as during the previous 90 days. (bolded emphasis added) ¶ [0025] 3rd sentence: the determination may occur periodically such as, for example, once per day, once per work shift, once per scheduled time interval, or continuously. (bolded emphasis added). For example, ¶ [0026] 3rd-4th sentences: if the threshold is 5 minutes, and the agent is 4 minutes late, the schedule violation may be considered to be less than threshold. Alternatively, for example, if the threshold is 5 minutes, and the agent is 6 minutes late, the schedule violation may be considered to be greater than threshold. In alternative embodiment, the CCM 124 may determine whether the schedule violation is greater than the threshold plus a constant value (e.g., 2 minutes). ¶ [0028] 3rd sentence: The schedule violation information may further include a violation ID (i.e., a unique identifier associated with the schedule violation), a time stamp, break details, an amount of time over the threshold, and other details about the schedule violation. ¶ [0038] 2nd sentence: For each schedule violation made by the agent 132, the individual violation status web page 270 includes information about the type of schedule violation, a time of occurrence, a description, how the schedule violation count of the agent 132 is affected by the schedule violation, and a link to request removal of the schedule violation from the agent record.
Therefore, the Examiner has provided a preponderance of evidence showing the prior art teaching or at least suggesting canceling the coaching session as contested by Applicant above.
Accordingly, the Applicant’s Arguments II above is found unpersuasive.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Here, Claims 1-5,8-15,18-20 of the current Application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of US Patent US 11238415 B2 in view of McConnell et al, US 10623233 B1, in view of
Anthony J. Dezonno US 7110526 B1, and in further view of
McIlwaine et al US 20060233346 A1 hereinafter McIlwaine, and in further view of
Judkins et al, US 6707904 B1 hereinafter Judkins
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11238415 B2 recite substantially similar limitations as Claims 1-5,8-15,18-20 of the current Application, with one difference being that Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11238415 B2 recite some narrower limitations than Claims 1-5,8-15,18-20 of the current Application. For example, independent claims 1,11 of U.S. Patent No. US11238415B2 appear to recite narrower limitations of independent claims 1, 9, 11, 19 of current application. Also, the limitations of: “for one or more of the agents that have been scheduled for a coaching session, automatically cancel the coaching session if an amount of nonadherence days based on the amount of time not in adherence during a predetermined subsequent period of time is less than during a first predetermined threshold; wherein one or more of the processors is configured so that a second graphical user interface displays, for each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching, a second link, which when clicked, allows the supervisor device to reschedule or cancel the agent's coaching session” are substantially reflected in the language of dependent Claim 4,7,14,17 of U.S. Patent No. US 11238415 B2.
One difference is that the independent Claims 1,9,11,19 of the current Application recites
“automatically schedule a coaching session with each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching during hours in which a workforce that performs same activities as the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching is larger than needed” which is not recited in Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11238415 B2. However,
McConnell in analogous management of agents within a contact center teaches/ suggests:
- “automatically schedule a coaching session with each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching…”
(McConnell column 37 lines 2-15: automatically determine optimal times to initiate coaching sessions with agent instances. The embodiments allow end-user network 320 to provide one or more conditions to management network 300, which uses the conditions to (i) determine whether a supervisor instance from end-user network 320 is available to administer a coaching session, (ii) determine segments of idle time for agent instances on end-user network 320, and (iii) initiate coaching sessions during the identified idle time segments, either to individual agent instances or groups of agent instances. This saves end-user network 320 time and resources, as there is no longer a need to allocate auxiliary agent instances and the challenge of having to pre-schedule/cancel coaching sessions at various times is resolved. column 38 lines 36-44: the conditions specify, for example, (i) which agent instances on end-user network 320 are due for coaching, (ii) how much coaching time each agent instance needs, (iii) a priority order in which agent instances need to be coached (e.g., high priority, medium priority, low priority), (iv) under what conditions agent instances can receive coaching sessions, and (v) whether any supervisor instances are available to administer a coaching session).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified in Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11238415 B2 to have included McConnell’s teachings in order to save the end-user network 320 time and resources, as there would no longer be a need to allocate auxiliary agent instances and the challenge of having to pre-schedule/cancel coaching sessions at various times is resolved (McConnell column 37 lines 12-15 in view of MPEP 2143 G). Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in similar work management field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed same analytical and managerial function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
* While *
McConnell teaches the agents being idle and thus more than needed, yet neither
McConnell, nor Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11238415 B2 in combination with
McConnel teaches or suggests the trainers, as other workforce “larger than needed”
Dezonno however in analogues art of management of agents teaches or suggests:
- “workforce” “larger than needed” (Dezonno Claim 28: automatic call distributor matching a group having too many agents with a group having not enough agents and transferring an agent with appropriate qualifications from the group having too many agents to the group having not enough agents. Claim 29: determine whether to reassign agents by matching a group having too many agents with a group having not enough agents and transferring an agent with appropriate qualifications from the group having too many agents to the group having not enough agents based upon training of the neural network, the respective group status of the agent groups and at least one of the operating parameters).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11238415 B2 and McConnell’s teachings to have further included Dezonno’s teachings in order to have provided a more rigorous modeling (Dezonno column 6 lines 37-46 in view of MPEP 2143 G) for better management of agents without overwhelming them (Dezonno column 2 lines 15-20 in view of MPEP 2143 F and/or G). Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in similar work management field of endeavor. In such combination, each element would have merely performed same analytical and managerial function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have also been predictable (MPEP 2143 A). Furthermore,
McConnel / Dezonno in combination with US 11238415 B2 also do not teach:
- “wherein the scheduled start and stop times and the scheduled total amount of time for each of the one or more scheduled activities are assigned by a supervisor device, the supervisor device configured to allow a supervisor to generate schedules including the scheduled activities based on: one or more staffing forecasts, and one or more scheduling preferences received from one or more of the agent devices, wherein the supervisor device is communicating with the server over a network”
- “execute the ACD on the supervisor device and on the server”;
McIlwaine however in analogous art of monitoring agents in a call center teaches/suggest:
- “wherein the scheduled start and stop times and the scheduled total amount of time for each of the one or more scheduled activities are assigned by a supervisor device, the supervisor device configured to allow a supervisor to generate schedules including the scheduled activities” (McIlwaine ¶ [0060] 1st sentence: Figs.1-3 are directed to the scheduled delivery of content, such as training, to a constituent contact agent, such as call center agent. ¶ [0252] 3rd-4th sentences: Typically, the agent's supervisor, or some other member of the contact center's management, specifies a timeframe or time period during which an agent 40 should receive an assigned performance intervention. The assignment start date 1635 coincides with the beginning of that timeframe, while the complete-by date 1640 specifies or designates the end [or stop] of that assignment timeframe) “based on: one or more staffing forecasts” (McIlwaine ¶ [0084] 5th-7th sentences: This data is advantageously used by the training system to forecast when and if all agents or some agents should be available for training at some point in the future. For example, if the workload data history indicates that call volume drops significantly between 10 p.m. and midnight on Fridays, then the training system can, by leveraging data from other systems, forecast that call volume will drop next Friday evening. The training system 20 can thereby determine if an agent should be available for training at some point in the future, such as next Friday evening, based on the workload data history. ¶ [0085] If training system 20 determines at step 286 that the agent should be available at an upcoming time, the method proceeds through the Yes branch to step 287. If the system forecasts at step 286 that the agent will not be available at the upcoming time, the method proceeds through the No branch and returns. At step 287, the training system monitors predetermined agent and call center workload thresholds. If those thresholds are not exceeded, the system proceeds to step 288. If those workload thresholds are exceeded, the system returns to step 284 and updates the workload data history. ¶ [0095] 1st-2nd sentences: The term state or contact center state is used to refer to factors that describe or effect the contact center's overall operations. Contact center state includes measurements related to workload or activity level such as current call volume, historical call volume, and forecast call volume, each of which is sometimes described seasonally or over another increment of time. Other details at ¶ [0323]), “and one or more scheduling preferences received from one or more of the agent devices” (McIlwaine ¶ [0234] 4th sentence: agent's interaction with ACD 32 include agent 40 notifying ACD 32 of his/her availability to receive a performance intervention. ¶ [0015] 2nd sentence: each agent selects interventions according to personal preference. ¶ [0072] 2nd sentence: information delivery tool 104 preferably receives agent workload data and call center load data from ACD 32. ¶ [0068] 4th sentence: The training system 20 is also preferably in communication with quality monitoring component 50 through the communications network 54 so that training materials may be delivered to those agents most in need of training).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified McConnel / Dezonno in combination with U.S. Patent No. US 11238415 B2 to have further included McIlwaine’s teachings in order to have further improved or enhanced the performance, effectiveness, or efficiency of the agents of the call center (McIlwaine ¶ [0018] 1st sentence in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, dealing with monitoring agents in a call center. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same analytical, organizational and managerial function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by U.S. Patent No. US 11238415 B2 in view of McConnel / Dezonno in further view of McIlwaine the to be combined elements would have fitted together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus., it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable. (MPEP 2143 A).
Judkins further in analogous art of call center monitoring teaches or suggests:
- “wherein the supervisor device is communicating with the server over a network”,
(Judkins column 2 lines 1-2: A supervisor computer is connected to … (ACD) server… column 25 lines 37-47: As noted before, the call center Supervisor server 116 of the call center system of the present invention communicates with the ACD server 110 via a TCP/IP link. The ACD server can send out updates every 1-5 seconds (by default) describing status changes of agents and incoming calls. The Supervisor server 116 through the Supervisor software application calculates and stores the information for viewing. The following real-time monitors can be available (Viewed by team, agent, DNIS, skill or entire call center): calls answered; calls abandoned; talk time; agent status; calls in queue; and agents in queue)
- “execute ACD on the supervisor device and on the server”;
(Judkins column 25 lines 37-47: As noted before, the call center Supervisor server 116 of the call center system communicates with the ACD server 110 via a TCP/IP link. The ACD server
can send out updates every 1-5 seconds (by default) describing status changes of agents and incoming calls. The Supervisor server 116 through the Supervisor Software application calculates and stores the information for viewing. The following real-time monitors can be available (Viewed by team, agent, DNIS, skill or entire call center): calls answered, calls abandoned, talked time, agent status, calls in queue and agents in queue. column 26 lines 29-35: The Supervisor application of the present invention, every 15 minutes (or as configured with the switch) has the ACD server write out statistics to the historical database 120 of the SQL server 118. Managers are able to view, drill, filter the presentation of these statistics and retrieve reports from this database using the same flexible supervisor platform that provides the real-time reporting).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified McConnel / Dezonno / McIlwaine in combination with U.S. Patent No. US 11238415 B2 to have included Judkins’ teachings in order to have offer more dynamic call center systems and have provided services to customers and caller in a more effective manner while also more adaptively and quickly responding to the changing conditions in a manner to allow adequate real time report generation and control and tracking of calls within the call center (Judkins column1 lines 51-56 in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, dealing with call center monitoring. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same analytical, organizational and managerial function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by U.S. Patent No. US 11238415 B2 in view of McConnel/Dezonno/McIlwaine in further view of Judkins the to be combined elements would have fitted together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus., it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable. (MPEP 2143 A).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 8-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, here abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) set forth or describe the abstract grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”, namely managing relationships or interactions between people including teaching, and following rules or instructions [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C] set forth by “…schedule a coaching session with each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching during hours in which a workforce that performs the same activities as the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching is larger than needed” at independent Claims 1,9,11,19 / “transmit[ting] an alert to each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching, wherein the alert comprises” “information indicating why the agent has been determined to require coaching” at independent Claims 1,9,11,19, “cancel the coaching session if an amount of nonadherence days based on the amount of time not in adherence during a predetermined subsequent period of time is less than during a first predetermined threshold” at independent Claims 1,9,11,19 and similarly, “the supervisor to reschedule or cancel the agent's coaching session” at dependent Claims 5,15 with consideration for historical usage information3, preponderantly set forth through Claims 1-5,8-12,14,18-20 with respect to “conformance”, “adherence” and “non-adherence” and respective “amount(s) “occurrence(s)”, “frequency” and by benchmarking “the amount of time of actual performance of activities that is within the scheduled start and stop times of the activities, the amount of time of actual performance based on start and stop times of performance of activities”.
Such managing relationships or interactions between people including teaching, following rules or instructions, have basis in the equally abstract fundamental or commercial principles [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A] set forth here by language such as “adherence data comprises, for each of one or more scheduled activities during a date range, an amount of time in adherence or an amount of time not in adherence determined based on the amount of time of actual performance of activities that is within the scheduled start and stop times of the activities, the amount of time of actual performance based on start and stop times of performance of activities” (independent Claims 1,11) and similarly “conformance data comprises, for each of one or more scheduled activities during a date range, an amount of time in conformance or an amount of time not in conformance” (independent Claims 9,19). As per the preponderance of “supervisor” and “one or more agents” throughout such abstract processes, the Examiner points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶6, 4th sentence which states that the above “sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction)”. The subsequent “coaching” requir[ement] as first mentioned at independent Claims 1,9,11,19 and later detailed as “scheduled” at dependent Claim 4,5,14,15 sets forth a relationship between “supervisor” and “one or more agents”, which falls within the business relationships of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II B. Examiner also points to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶6, 4th sentence to state that certain activity between a person and a computer may still fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. It then follows that here, recitations of “wherein the scheduled start and stop times and the scheduled total amount of time for each of the one or more scheduled activities are assigned by a supervisor device, the supervisor device configured to allow a supervisor to generate schedules including the scheduled activities based on: one or more staffing forecasts, and one or more scheduling preferences received from one or more of the agent devices”; “transmit an alert to each agent device of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching, wherein the alert comprises a link to information indicating why the agent of the one or more agents has been determined to require coaching; and display the alert on an agent dashboard on a graphical user interface in response to clicking the link”; “continually monitor one or more of the agents that have been scheduled for a coaching session”, “a second graphical user interface displays, for each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching, a second link, which when clicked, allows the supervisor device to reschedule or cancel the agent's coaching session” at independent Claims 1,9,11,19 would not necessarily preclude the claims to recite or at minimum describe or set forth the abstract idea. Further said managing relationships or interactions between people including teaching, following rules or instructions, and related fundamental and commercial principles are implemented through equally abstract mathematical relationships in words [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I A] such as percentage of adherence for the agent of the one or more agents based on a comparison of: a sum of the amount of time the agent was in adherence or a sum of the amount of time the agent was not in adherence for each of the scheduled activities on that date, and a sum of the scheduled total amount of time for each of the scheduled activities on that date (Claims 2,12) and “percentage of conformance for the agent based on a comparison of a sum of the actual total amount of time each of the scheduled activities were actually performed by the agent and a sum of the scheduled total amount of time for each of the scheduled activities on that date” (Claims 10,20). Equally important the organizing of human activities and mathematical concepts expressed in words are part of equally abstract observation, evaluation, judgement of computer aided mental processes.
- Such computer aided observation, as tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, is set forth here as “adherence and conformance data / conformance data” “determined” receive[d]” [or observed], “for one or more agents” and “compris[ing], for each of one or more scheduled activities during a date range, an amount of time in adherence or an amount of time not in adherence determined based on the amount of time of actual performance of activities that is within the scheduled start and stop times of the activities, the amount of time of actual performance based on start and stop times of performance of activities”, “display the alert on an agent dashboard on a graphical user interface in response to clicking the link”, “continually monitor one or more of the agents that have been scheduled for a coaching session” at independent Claims 1,9,11,19 “allows a supervisor to select the date range and an objective” at dependent Claim 8 etc., and “transmit alert to each of the one or more agents” “determined to require coaching” at independent Claims 1,11.
- Similarly, the computer aided evaluation and judgment, tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, are set forth by: “determine”, “for the one or more agents, adherence data and conformance data, wherein the adherence data comprises, for each of one or more scheduled activities during a date range, an amount of time in adherence or an amount of time not in adherence determined based on an amount of time of actual performance of activities that is within scheduled start and stop times of the activities, the amount of time of actual performance based on start and stop times of performance of activities”, “determine if any of the one or more agents requires coaching based on: a comparison of the adherence data to a goal amount of occurrences of a goal amount of adherence, and a comparison of the conformance data to a goal amount of occurrences of a goal amount of conformance”; (independent Claims 1,11), / “for one or more of the agents that have been scheduled for the coaching session” “cancel the coaching session if an amount of nonadherence days based on the amount of time not in adherence during a predetermined subsequent period of time is less than during a first predetermined threshold”; “for each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching, a second link, which when clicked, allows the supervisor device to reschedule or cancel the agent's coaching session” (independent Claims 1,9,11,19), “determine if any of the one or more agents requires coaching based on a comparison of the conformance data to a goal amount of occurrences of the goal amount of conformance”; (dependent Claims 9,19); “allowing a supervisor to select” “for each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching, whether to transmit the report along with the alert to the agent of the one or more agents” (dependent Claim 13) “determine if any of the one or more agents require coaching by, for each of the one or more agents: determining amount of nonadherence days in the date range that the percentage of adherence is less than or equal to the goal amount of adherence, and determining if the amount of nonadherence days at a goal frequency is greater than or equal to the goal amount of occurrences of the goal amount of adherence at the goal frequency” (dependent Claim 3), and determination “if a difference between the amount of nonadherence days at a goal frequency during the predetermined subsequent period of and the amount of nonadherence days during the date range at the goal frequency is less than a second predetermined threshold; wherein the predetermined subsequent period of time is between after the date range ends and time that the agent was scheduled for coaching session” (dependent Claim 4).
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III explicitly points to use of physical aids in the mental observations, evaluations, judgments. Here, nothing would have precluded a supervisor, manager, or human resources representative, as a person of ordinary skills in the art to observed on the stopwatch or punch-card from a time card reader, or even a general computer to determine “adherence” “on the amount of time” “within the scheduled start and stop times of the activities, the amount of time of actual performance based on start and stop times of performance of activities”. While, the Examiner notes the “transmit an alert to each agent device” at independent Claims 1,11; “display the alert on an agent dashboard on a graphical user interface in response to clicking the links continually monitor one or more of the agents that have been scheduled for a coaching session”, “a second graphical user interface displays, for each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching, a second link, which when clicked, allows the supervisor device to reschedule or cancel the agent's coaching session” at independent Claims 1,9,11,19, “the second graphical user interface displays, for each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching” “a link, which when clicked, causes” “to display a report in the second graphical user interface” at dependent Claims 5,14, “second graphical user interface allows a supervisor to select a date range and an objective” at dependent Claim 8 etc., the Examiner does point to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶6, 4th sentence which states that “certain activity between a person and a computer… may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. In a similar vein MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C. states that: #1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer, #2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment and #3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process, do not preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract mental processes.
It would then follow that here recitations of “transmit an alert to each agent device” at independent Claims 1,11; “display the alert on an agent dashboard on a graphical user interface in response to clicking the links continually monitor one or more of the agents that have been scheduled for a coaching session”, “a second graphical user interface displays, for each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching, a second link, which when clicked, allows the supervisor device to reschedule or cancel the agent's coaching session” at independent Claims 1,9,11,19, “the second graphical user interface displays, for each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching” “a link, which when clicked, causes” “to display a report in the second graphical user interface” at dependent Claims 5,14, “second graphical user interface allows a supervisor to select a date range and an objective” at dependent Claim 8 etc. and similarly at dependent Claim 13 etc. would not necessarily preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract exception. While, in abundance of caution, the effect of such computerization will be more granularly investigated at the subsequent steps below, for now, it is clear that, given the preponderance of legal evidence as demonstrated above, the claims’ character as a whole remains undeniably abstract. Step 2A prong one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because per Step 2A prong two, the individual or combination of the additional, computer-based elements are/is found, to merely narrow the abstract character of the claims to a field of use or technological environment or at most apply the above abstract idea. Here, the additional elements are: “one or more agent devices, each” “comprising a processor and configured to track start and stop times”; “a server receiving the start and stop times from the one or more agent devices and comprising: a memory and one or more processors configured to” (Claims 1,3,4,5,8), “processor” (Claims 11,19) and “first” and “second” “graphical user interface” (Claims 1,5,8,9,11,13,14,18) associated with clicking the “link” / “second link” (Claims 1,9, 11,19) and similarly the “monitor and one or more processors” (Claim 8,9), and possibly the automat[ion] component of the “scheduling” (Claims 1,9, 11,19). When considered alone or in combination they merely apply the above abstract processes, which according to MPEP 2106.05(f) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For example, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i) states that a business method or associated mathematical algorithm applied on a general-purpose computer4 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It then follows that here, the capability of “processors” to apply the fundamental, commercial principles above or existing processes would similarly not integrate the abstract exception. Step 2A prong two.
As other examples, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states that use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks such as to receive, store, or transmit data, represent mere invocation of computers as mere tools to perform the abstract process5. Similarly, a process for monitoring audit log data executed on a general-purpose computer6 and requiring use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer7, also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It then follows that here, the capabilities of “processors” to monitor “adherence” and “non-adherence” “data”, respective amount(s), and frequenc(ies) etc. would similarly not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It would also follow that here the capabilities of the “processors” to “transmit an alert to each agent device of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching, wherein the alert comprises a link to information indicating why the agent of the one or more agents has been determined to require coaching” “and” “display the alert on an agent dashboard on a graphical user interface in response to clicking the link”, and “continually monitor one or more of the agents that have been scheduled for a coaching session”; “and” “for one or more of the agents that have been scheduled for the coaching session, automatically cancel the coaching session if an amount of nonadherence days based on the amount of time not in adherence during a predetermined subsequent period of time is less than during a first predetermined threshold; wherein one or more of the processors is configured so that a second graphical user interface displays, for each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching, a second link, which when clicked, allows the supervisor device to reschedule or cancel the agent's coaching session” at independent Claims 1,9,11,19, and recitations of “the second graphical user interface displays, for each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching” “a link, which when clicked, causes the one or more processors to display a report in the second graphical user interface” at dependent Claims 5,14, “allowing the supervisor to select, through the second graphical user interface, for each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching, whether to transmit the report along with the alert to that agent” at dependent Claim 13, and “wherein the second graphical user interface allows a supervisor to select a date range and an objective” at dependent Claim 8, are recitations analogous to tailoring information, and as such, they would similarly not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Prong two.
In fact, MPEP 2106.05(h)8 goes as far to state that narrowing the combination of collecting information, analyzing, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It then follows that here the combination of determining/receiving adherence / conformance data, followed by additional analysis of adherence / conformance related data, and display or transmission of alerts and report, when limited to a technological environment represented by “processors”, “monitor” and “interface” etc. would similarly not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application.
As per the schedule[ing] being recited as “automatically”, the Examiner submits that such automation merely applies the abstract business practice, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (i), (iii).
Also here, the narrowing of the abstract adherence and conformance analysis to calling activities connected by automatic call distributor (ACD), represents a mere attempt at narrowing the abstract exception to a field of use or technological environment, which per MPEP 2106.05(h) does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. For example, per MPEP 2106.05(h) x9 requiring transactions performed using a computer that receives and sends information over a network, indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. It would then follow that here requiring “calls” “activities” or transactions being “connected to one or more agent devices” by “automatic call distributor (ACD)” and recitation of “execute the ACD on the supervisor device and on the server” should similarly represent an example of requiring transactions performed using a computer [switch or ACD] that receives and sends information over a network [of agent devices], which according to MPEP 2106.05(h) x.10 would represent a narrowing of the abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment, which would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h) also found that a broadcast system in which a cellular telephone located outside the range of a regional broadcaster (1) requests and receives network-based content from the broadcaster via a streaming signal, (2) is configured to wirelessly download an application for performing those functions, and (3) contains a display that allows the user to select particular content, represents a mere attempt to link the abstracted exception to a particular technological environment, citing Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the “ACD” execute[d] “on” “server” would be comparable to such network-based broadcaster in Affinity Labs, while the application downloaded on the cellular telephone to perform the functions of network-based content from the broadcaster in Affinity Labs would be comparable to “the ACD” “executed on the supervisor device”. Thus, such level of automation or computerization would represent a narrowing of the abstract exception to a field of use or technological environment which would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), the use of “ACD” in “connecting calls” would represent, along with the capabilities of the “processor” “to track start and stop times” and the server’s capabilities in “receiving the start and stop times from the one or more agent devices”, examples of applying the abstract idea.
For example, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) cites TLI Communications 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48, to state that the combination of a telephone unit used to make calls and a server to receives data, extract classification information from the received data, and stores data based on the extracted information, represent invocation of computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, which would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It would then follow that here, requiring the connecting of calls to agent devices by the ACD would be comparable to the combination of the server and telephone devices in TLI Communications, and thus would also not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as shown above, the additional computer-based elements merely apply the already recited abstract idea, [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and/or provide a narrowing of the abstract idea to a field of user or technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(h)]. Examiner follows MPEP 2106.05 (d) II and carries over the MPEP 2106.05 (f), (h) findings as sufficient option for evidence that the additional computer-based elements also do not provide significantly more, without relying on conventionality test of MPEP 2106.05(d).
Even assuming arguendo, that further evidence would further be required to demonstrate conventionality of additional, computer-based elements, the Examiner would point to MPEP 2106.05(d) to demonstrate conventionality of computer components performing: receiving or transmitting data over a network including utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information11, electronic recordkeeping12 / gathering statistics and presenting offers13, arranging hierarchy of groups and sorting information14, performing repetitive calculations15. Specifically, here receiving or transmitting data over a network including utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information are represented here by recitation of “wherein the supervisor device is communicating with the server over a network”, “execute the ACD on the supervisor device and on the server” at independent Claims 1,9,11,19, while the electronic recordkeeping, gathering statistics, arranging hierarchy of groups, and performing repetitive calculations, are reflected in the capabilities of the “processors” to organize the “adherence” / “conformance” related data. Also here, the sorting of information is reflected in the capabilities of a “graphical user interface” and “second” “graphical user interface” and associated “link” / “second link”, [be] “clicked”, and allow “select[ion]” and “display” as recited at Claims 5,8,13,14,18.
If necessary, Examiner would also follow MPEP 2106.05(d) I.2.(a), and point as evidence for the conventionality of the additional computer-based elements at:
Original Specification ¶ [031] reciting at high level of generality: “In the following detailed description, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the invention. However, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that the present invention can be practiced without these specific details. In other instances, well-known methods, procedures, and components, modules, units and/or circuits have not been described in detail so as not to obscure the invention”.
Original Specation ¶ [056] reciting at high level: “Reference is made to Fig. 1, which is a block diagram of a computing device 100 used with or executing embodiments of the present invention. The computing device 100 may include one or more computer processors or controllers 105 that may be, for example, a central processing unit processor (CPU), a chip or any suitable computing or computational device, an operating system 115, a memory 120, a storage 130, input devices 135, an output devices 140, and one or more monitors or displays 145”.
Original Specification ¶ [0150] reciting at high level of generality: “In operation 1011, the supervisor device may, for each of the one or more of agents that have been scheduled for a coaching session, generate an agent action report (e.g., the agent action report of Fig.5). In some embodiments of the invention, the supervisor device may be configured to allow the supervisor to select, through the graphical user interface, for each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching, whether to transmit the agent action report along with the alert to that agent”.
Original Specification ¶ [0153] reciting at high level of generality: “In the foregoing detailed description, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide an understanding of the invention. However, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that the invention can be practiced without these specific details. In other instances, well- known methods, procedures, and components, modules, units and/or circuits have not been described in detail so as not to obscure the invention. Some features or elements described with respect to one embodiment can be combined with features or elements described with respect to other embodiments”.
Original Specification ¶ [0120] 2nd sentence reciting at high level of generality: “ACD717 and WFM process719 may be run or be executed on a server (e.g., the server205 of FIG. 2) and/or supervisor device (e.g., the supervisor device203 of FIG. 2) in the call center”. Also, Specification ¶ [0121] 3rd sentence reciting at high level of generality: “if the caller has selected that they are calling for customer service, the ACD717 may connect the caller715 to the next available agent709 which is scheduled to perform customer service”
If necessary, the Examiner would also follow MPEP 2106.05(d) I.2.(c), and further rely on:
Automatic call distributor, wikipedia, wayback machine, June 19th, 2019, generally disclosing the automatic call distributor acting as a mini-switchboard to route phone calls.
US 10237420 B1 column 7 line 64-column 8 line 5 reciting: “Various types of conventional automatic call distributors (ACDs) are available to distribute incoming calls to a group... Agent communication terminals (ACTs) which are connected to an ACD are utilized by the agents to process incoming calls routed to a particular ACT by the ACD”.
US 11045271 B1 column 62 lines 42-44 … “conventional routing via an Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) queue order or the like is done by determining a queue order of the caller”
US 11190642 B1 column 1 lines 12-15: “Conventional techniques for automatic call distribution (ACD) route incoming calls to available individuals within an organization, based on user-entered selections to automatic prompts from the ACD system”.
US 20020013836 A1 ¶ [0014] 7th sentence: “A conventional automatic call distributor (ACD) is a computerized phone system that routes incoming telephone calls to operators or agents”.
US 20020077876 A1 ¶ [0111]: “In a conventional call center, customer requests enter via the public-switched telephone network (PSTN), usually via a Private Branch Exchange (PBX), such as a Meridian I (from Nortel Networks Corporation of Montreal, Canada), to an automatic call distributor (ACD) providing the control mechanism, such as the Symposium Call Center Server (from Nortel Networks Corporation of Montreal, Canada). An ACD is telecommunications software used in a digital computer that automatically answers calls, queues calls, distributes calls to agents, and plays delay announcements. U.S. Pat. No. 4,451,705 discloses a known type of ACD and is incorporated herein by reference”
US 20030126180 A1 ¶ [0014] 3rd - 6th sentences: “Contacts are distributed for servicing (handling) in contact center 100 among a plurality of resources 112-114 by a conventional automatic call distribution (ACD) system 110. Resources 112-114 may include electronic resources, e.g., interactive voice response systems, but typically comprise human resources, i.e., agents equipped with telephones and workstations. Resources 112-114 are in data communication with a customer relationship management (CRM) system 116. CRM system 116 is an intelligent system comprising an appropriately-programmed computer, and a relational database (DB) 118 for storing contact-related information”.
US 20030147521 A1 ¶ [0002] “Conventional communication system switches include private branch exchanges (PBXs), automatic call distribution (ACD) systems, computer-telephony integration (CTI)-based systems, and other premises or enterprise-based call processing elements, as well as portions or combinations of these and other types of systems”.
US 20030185374 A1 ¶ [0019] 3rd sentence: “In this instance, automatic call distribution (ACD) logic of conventional design (not shown) is used to queue and distribute calls to operators in the order in which they are received, and such that the call traffic is distributed evenly among the operators”.
US 20030197615 A1 ¶ [0021] 4th sentence: “The IVR server 122 can be a conventional automatic call distribution (ACD) server as is well known to those skilled in the art, running an operating system such as Windows NT or UNIX, or the like”.
US 20030235810 A1 ¶ [0052] 2nd sentence: “PBX 6 distributes calls incoming through public switched telephone network 7 from customer terminal apparatuses (telephone sets) 81-8n for the customers' use (hereafter generically referred to as customer terminal apparatuses 8) by use of the ACD (automatic call distribution) facility to operator terminal apparatuses 21-2n.”
US 20040057571 A1 ¶ [0003] “Conventional communication system switches include private branch exchanges (PBXs), automatic call distribution (ACD) systems, computer-telephony integration (CTI)-based systems, and other premises or enterprise-based call processing elements, as well as portions or combinations of these and other types of systems”.
US 20040064549 A1 ¶ [0002] “Examples of conventional communication system switches include private branch exchanges (PBXs) and automatic call distribution (ACD) systems. As is well known, such switches may be controlled via computer-telephony integration (CTI) applications running on computers internal or external to the corresponding enterprise communication platform. CTI applications are commonly used in call centers and other enterprise call processing contexts”.
US 20050025303 A1 ¶ [0027] “With reference to Fig.1, an illustrative call center is shown. As is conventional, the call center comprises a plurality of telephone lines and/or trunks 10 selectively interconnected with a plurality of agent positions 12-14 via an automatic call distribution (ACD) system 16. Each agent position typically includes a voice-and-data terminal for use by a corresponding agent (not shown) in handling calls. Agent positions 12-14 are connected to the ACD system 16 by a voice-and-data transmission medium 18. Also connected to the ACD system 16 is a conventional call management system (CMS) 20 that gathers call records and call center statistics for use in managing the call center and in generating call center reports”.
US 20050135335 A1 ¶ [0007] 1st-3rd sentences: “Another approach has been to use a conventional automatic call distribution (ACD) system as a fall back. A conventional ACD system is typically less expensive than providing a complete mirrored contact center. This approach is suitable for call centers using an associated PBX and it allows contacts to be automatically directed to contact center agents in the event that the contact center itself is not operating”.
US 20050141692 A1 ¶ [0005] “Fig. 1A (Prior Art) shows a conventional Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) system. ACD systems are used to control the routing of phone calls to call takers. An incoming call 100 is routed by a phone company's Central Office (CO 101) to a privately owned phone switch 103 in a call center. The ACD software 104 is programmed to automatically route incoming calls 100 to call takers 109, based on a number of attributes such as type of call, ability of each call taker, how long the call has been ringing, and how many calls each call taker has taken. These systems are commonly used by customer support organizations that need to handle large numbers of incoming calls from customers”.
US 20050262114 A1 ¶ [0043] 4th sentence: “A conventional automatic call distributor (ACD) is a computerized phone system that routes incoming telephone calls to operators or agents”.
US 20060188078 A1 ¶ [0005] 1st- 2nd sentences: “Systems for managing and routing calls through public and/or private communications networks are known in the art. Conventional automatic call distribution (ACD) systems route calls to agents in telemarketing and service inquiry centers, and provide limited real-time call management and reporting capabilities”.
US 20060245580 A1 ¶ [0012] 1st sentence: “The routing element 102C can comprise conventional routing technology similar to that of an ACD (Automatic Call Distributor) for routing customers 104 to selected agents 108A-N coupled to the communication system 101”.
US 20070074220 A1 ¶ [0011] 1st sentence: “Most automatic call distributors ("ACDs") have a feature that is generically called call overflow”
US 20090175438 A1 ¶ [0005] “U.S. Pat. No. 5,778,060 describes a central system based on a conventional ACD switch (ACD: Automatic Call Distribution), which is connected to remote agents and local agents, who continuously transmit their status to the ACD switch via the fixed network of the ACD. Thereby it is possible for the ACD switch to distribute calls to remote agents at the same terms as to the local agents.
US 20100076760 A1 ¶ [0003] 1st sentence: “A conventional call center typically comprises either an Automatic Call Distributor (ACD) or Private Branch Exchange (PBX) apparatus which receives incoming calls through a Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) and routes the calls to a group of ACD agents having like skills”.
US 20200304642 A1 ¶ [0004] 1st sentence: “Conventional call centers typically include an automatic call distributor (ACD) for routing incoming calls to available and suitable agents for the purpose of addressing the caller's needs”.
US 20220237368 A1 ¶ [0247] “…conventional routing via an Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) queue order or the like is done by determining a queue order of the caller. For example, if other callers are on hold waiting for an available agent, the caller may be queued with other callers, e.g., a system may order the callers in terms of hold time and preferentially map those callers that have been holding the longest. The system then maps the agent that has been waiting or idle the longest with the caller that has been holding the longest. The caller may then be routed to the agent. The system can preferentially route callers to those agents shown to have greater ability to generate sales, can increase the chances of achieving greater sales during the contacts. Similarly, other agents may be shown to generate shorter interactions with callers than that of other agents at the same contact center. By preferentially routing contacts to the agents shown to generate shorter interactions with callers, a contact center or contact center client can decrease its overall need for agents and communication bandwidth, and therefore, reduce its costs”.
US 5187735 A column 10 lines 20-34: “PBX 200 also, as mentioned above, includes conventional "automatic call distribution" (ACD) capabilities. As is well known, ACD provides more versatile and flexible call routing. For example, the ACD feature of PBX 200 may automatically re-route a call on an incoming trunk preassigned by the "trunk-to-station" portion of PBX 200 to a "busy" (i.e., in use) destination device port--or the ACD may instead place the incoming call "on hold" or provide prerecorded voice prompts (e.g., via VMS 300 if desired) allowing the caller to select what action he wishes the PBX to take (e.g., place him on hold, route to the VMS 300, etc.). The PBX 200 ACD functionality and characteristics may be flexibly programmed in a well known manner by loading customized program control steps into the PBX”.
US 5436967 A column 3 lines 18-22: “It conventionally comprises an automatic call distribution (ACD) private branch exchange (PBX) 15 that distributes and connects calls to agent terminals 17”
US 5499291 A column 2 lines 40-54: Fig.1 shows an automatic call-distribution (ACD) system having a conventional architecture. It comprises an ACD private branch exchange (PBX) 10, such as an AT&T DEFINITY.RTM. G1 or G2 executing conventional AT&T ACD software. PBX 10 is connected to the outside world, e.g., the public telephony network, by a plurality of trunks 11. PBX 10 serves a plurality of ACD agent terminals 12 staffed by ACD agents 13. PBX 10 is connected to each terminal 12 by a digital link 16, such as an ISDN or an AT&T DCP link, which carries both voice and data communications. Also connected to PBX 10 is a call-management system (CMS) 14, such as an AT&T CMS. The connection is via a control communications link 17, such as an AT&T DCIU or ASAI link. An administration terminal 18 is connected to CMS 14. An ACD system supervisor 19 interfaces with CMS 14 via terminal 18.
US 5533115 A column 3 lines 20-28: “As shown in Fig.1, a preferred embodiment of a network-based telephone system 100 of the present invention includes the conventional elements of the public switched network 110, a plurality of telephones 112 (only one shown), an automatic call distributor (ACD) 108, an intelligent peripheral (IP) 104, a service control point (SCP) 102, external systems 106, an agent workstation network 115, a plurality of agent workstations 116 (only one shown) each having a telephone 117 and a display terminal 119”.
US 5546452 A column 1 lines 23-33: “Systems for routing calls through public or private communications networks are known in the art. Conventional automatic call distribution (ACD) systems route calls to agents in telemarketing and service inquiry centers, and provide limited real-time call management and reporting capabilities. A typical ACD system will monitor the status of the agent and, when an incoming call is received, selects the agent to handle a particular service request. Reporting and performance data from the agents are also generated by the ACD”.
US 5568544 A column 1 lines 21-25: “The CP of a conventional PBX typically includes automatic call distribution software (ACD) and ACD Routing Tables, which ACD software automatically routes incoming calls to preassigned destinations in order to maximize call-answering productivity”.
US 5742675 A column 1 lines 35-37: “Call distribution functions are performed conventionally as a part of a private branch exchange (PBX) telephone switch or by a separate automatic call distribution (ACD) switch, see for example EPA 0622938A2”.
US 5777754 A column 3 lines 6-13: “The network is connected to the ISN 12 through a conventional bridging switch 20 which, in turn, bridges an incoming fax transmission to a conventional Automatic Call Distributor (ACD) which is a switching system designed to distribute a large volume of incoming calls to various facilities within the ISN. For purposes of convenience, the ISN 12 only has that portion indicated that is necessary for the Fax Store and Forward Service”.
US 6188673 B1 column 3 lines 58-column 4 line 4: “Call center 106 conventionally includes an automatic call distributor (ACD) 107 and call management system (CMS) 114 connected to and serving a plurality of call center agent positions 109-110. Each agent position 109-110 includes a telephone 111 connected to ACD 107 for receiving voice calls, and a data terminal 112 connected by a local area network (LAN) 113 for receiving data, such as caller's records from a host computer 108. Alternatively, the telephone and data terminal are combined into a single instrument, such as a display telephone or a personal computer equipped with a "soft phone". ACD 107 and CMS 114 are interconnected by LAN 113 so that CMS 114 can collect information on the operation of call center 106 from ACD 107, in a conventional manner”.
US 6385191 B1 column 2 line 65-column 3 line 13: “Call center 106 conventionally includes an automatic call distributor (ACD) 107 and a host computer 108 connected to and serving a plurality of call center agent positions 109-110. Each agent position 109-110 includes a telephone 111 connected to ACD 107 for receiving voice calls, and a data terminal 112 connected by a local area network (LAN) 113 to host computer 108 for receiving data such as calling customers' records. Alternatively, the telephone and data terminal are combined into a single instrument, such as a display telephone or a personal computer equipped with a "soft phone". ACD 107 and host computer 108 are interconnected by LAN 113 so that host computer 108 can receive information from ACD 107 on which voice calls are being connected to which agent positions 109-110, so that host computer 108 can perform "screen pops" on displays of data terminals 112, in a conventional manner”.
US 6389132 B1 column 1 lines 11-18: “Today's businesses are relying more and more on telecommunications systems to help manage their interaction with others. Customer service often determines how a company is perceived. Businesses want to reduce their customer service costs by enabling their employees to maintain a maximum number of calls and reduce their idle time to a minimum. Conventional or prior art methods typically employ ACD (automatic call distribution) services”.
US 6396919 B1 column 1 lines 38-42: “In a conventional system, an automatic call distribution (ACD) unit is provided with an exchange unit, so that calls from customers are substantially uniformly distributed to the operators”
US 6650748 B1 column1 lines 21-46: “A conventional call center typically comprises either an Automatic Call Distributor (ACD) or Personal Branch Exchange (PBX) which receives incoming calls through a Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) and routes the calls to a group of ACD agents having like skills, also known as an ACD Skill/Split Hunt Group, rather than to a specific agent. An ACD typically contains a superset of the functions provided by a PBX. Specialized telephones, known as ACD/PBX feature phones, interface with a specific manufacturer's ACD/PBX and provide the agents with an array of advanced telephony functions. ACD/PBX feature phones typically have configurable buttons for handling multiple calls. ACD/PBX feature phones often provide agents with the ability to handle multiple calls on a single telephone line, known as "multiple call appearances." ACD/PBX feature phones may also provide agents with the ability to handle calls from multiple telephone lines on a single telephone instrument, known as "multiple line appearances." Generally, if an agent only requires the ability to juggle multiple calls, he will have multiple call appearance buttons on his ACD/PBX feature phone. If the agent requires different phone lines for different business functions, then the agent will have on his ACD/PBX feature phone. An ACD/PBX feature phone may provide functions for both multiple call and line appearances”.
US 6681010 B1 column1 lines 23-32 In a conventional telephone system, users will often log onto a telephone switch device with automatic call distribution (ACD). Such a telephone switch device would be provided with characteristics of the user logged on and then match those characteristics with characteristics of incoming calls so that a user with the correct qualifications or expertise answers the incoming call. For example, a caller may be provided with several options from a voice menu and when the option is selected the call is routed to a user associated with the selected option.
US 6744877 B1 column 1 lines 25-30: “A conventional call center typically comprises either an automatic call distributor ("ACD") or private branch exchange ("PBX") that receives incoming calls through a public switched telephone network ("PSTN") and routes the calls to a skill/split hunt group, rather than to a specific agent”.
US 6778661 B1 column1 lines 13-15: “As a conventional technique of call distribution in a CTI system, there is known ACD (Automatic Call Distribution), which has been used in a telephone system”.
US 6820260 B1 column 3 lines 24-37: “Call center 106 conventionally includes an automatic call distributor (ACD) 107, and a plurality of call-center agent positions 109-110 served by ACD 107. Call center 106 is Web-enabled in that ACD 107 is able to engage in both telephone and Internet communications. ACD 107 implements one or more call queues 111-112, one for each agent split or skill (a group of agents) defined by ACD 107. Each agent position 109-110 includes communications equipment for receiving telephone calls and data (Internet) calls. ACD 107 further includes an exemplary estimated wait time (EWT) function 113, such as is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,506,898 assigned to the same assignee, for estimating how long calls will have to wait in queue before being served by an agent”.
US 6829350 B1 column1 lines 41-46: “Cray, "Major Hassles, Major Payoffs", Data Communications, vol. 26, no. 3, October 1997, pages 127-130, describes a conventional call center is where hundreds equipped with headsets are connected to a private branch exchange, to which an automatic call distribution (ACD) belongs”.
In conclusion, Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 although directed to statutory categories (“system” or machine at Claims 1-5, 8, and Claims 9,10 and “method” or process at Claims 11-15, 18 and Claims 19,20) they still do recite or set forth the abstract idea (Step 2A prong one), with their additional, computer-based elements not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B). Thus, the Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 are believed to be patent ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rejections under 35 § U.S.C. 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1,5,8-11, 14,15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Ouimette; Jason P US 10171663 B1 hereinafter Ouimette, in view of
McIlwaine et al US 20060233346 A1 hereinafter McIlwaine, in view of
Judkins et al, US 6707904 B1 hereinafter Judkins, in view of
McConnell et al, US 10623233 B1 hereinafter McConnell, in view of
Anthony J. Dezonno US 7110526 B1 hereinafter Dezonno, and in further view of
Minnich et al, US 20090164289 A1 hereinafter Minnich. As per,
Claims 1,9,11,19 Ouimette teaches Methods and “An intelligent adherence analysis system comprising: “an automatic call distributor (ACD)” (Ouimette column 5 lies 53-56: inbound voice calls from calling parties to the contact center received at a communications handler 155, which could be an ACD); “one or more agent devices, each agent device comprising a processor and configured to track start and stop times of performance of activities of an agent of one or more agents, wherein the activities comprise one or more calls connected to one or more of the agent devices, wherein the connecting of the one or more calls is performed by the ACD” (Ouimette column 6 lines 11-27: an agent uses a specially configured computing device 160 a-c, such as a computer with display, and voice device 161 a-c for contact center functions associated with processing communications. For instance, the voice device 161 a-c may be soft phone device exemplified by a headset 161 a connected to computer 160 a. Here, the soft phone device may be a virtual telephone implemented in part by an application program executing on computer 160 a. Further, the phone may also comprise an Internet Protocol (IP) based headset 161 b or conventional phone 161 c. Use of the term phone is intended to encompass all these types of voice devices used by an agent, unless indicated otherwise. The combination of computing device 160 a-c and voice device 161 a-c may be referred to as workstation. column 6 lines 63-67: the workstation communicate to communications handler 155 to allow the contact center (including the communications handler 155 ) to know which agents are available for handling calls. column 7 lines 3-5: The communications handler 155 may also know what types of channels and combinations of channels the agent can handle. Column 28 lines 56-59: noting a real-time tracking module tracking real-time performance of compliance with THT [target handle time]. Fig.14, element 1415 and column 32 line 55- column 33 line 3 noting a countdown of handle time);
“a server receiving the start and stop times from the one or more agent devices and comprising” (Ouimette column 10 lines 19-36: Although a number of the above components are referred as a server, each may also be referred to as computing device, processing system, unit, or system. A server may incorporate a local data store and/or interface with an external data store. Use of the word server does not require the component to interact in a client-server arrangement with other components, although that may be the case. Further, the above components may be located remotely from or co-located with other components. Further, one or more of the components may be implemented on a single processing device to perform the functions herein. In various embodiments, functionalities of the communications handler 155 or other component may be combined into a single hardware platform executing one or more software modules. For example, at column 13 lines 3-15: a module starts a timer to track amount or duration of time the agent spends handling the communication, known as actual handle time. The display module makes use of timer to measure amount of time the agent spends handing communication for a particular reason. Thus, the display module resets the timer upon a new reason for communication being identified and the elapsed time as indicated by the timer is recorded as the actual handle time for the previous reason identified for the communication):
“a memory” (Ouimette column 34 lines 7-67); “and”
“one or more processors” (Ouimette column 34 lines 5-8) “configured to”:
- “determine and automatically update, for the one or more agents, adherence data and conformance data wherein the adherence data comprises, for each of one or more scheduled activities during a date range, an amount of time in adherence or an amount of time not in adherence determined based on an amount of time of actual performance of activities that is within scheduled start and stop times of the activities, the amount of time of actual performance based on start and stop times of performance of activities” (Claims 1,11) / “receive, and automatically update, for one or more agents, conformance data, wherein the conformance data comprises, for each of one or more scheduled activities during a date range, an amount of time in conformance or an amount of time not in conformance” (Claims 9,19)
(Ouimette Fig.12, column 28 lines 52-56, column 29 lines 3-7: communication handler 155 invokes real-time tracking module to track agent real-time compliance with THTs for the communication and updating statistics for agent accordingly. Examiner reads adherence in light of Original Specification ¶ [05] to include but not limited to, comparison of scheduled to actual start and stop times or duration. Examiner reads conformance in light of Original Specification
¶ [013] 2nd sentence to include but not limited to an aggregate measure such as percent adherence or non-adherence instances. Based on this claim construction
Ouimette teaches at column 1 lines 59-61: where a contact center monitor whether the AHT for calls taken by its agents > [target handle time] THT of 5 minutes. column 3 lines 12-15: Here, a difference is determined between actual handle time [AHT] and target handle time [THT] or revised target handle time and communication is tagged if the difference > threshold. Fig.11 step 1145, column 27 lines 34-36, 54-63: Thus, tagging module determines whether the difference is greater than the threshold in Operation 1145. Therefore, the tagging module determines whether the actual handle time for the reason was greater or less than the [target handle time] THT in Operation 1155. An actual handle time > THT indicates the agent took more time than allocated to handle the communication for the particular reason. Thus the tagging module tags the communication as out of conformance with respect to adhering to the [target handle time] THT by having an actual handle time significantly greater than the THT in Operation 1160. Also, column 29 lines 41-54: At this point, the real-time tracking module determines the difference between the actual handle time and the THT in Operation 1235 and determines in Operation 1240 if the difference is greater than a threshold, similar to the tagging module previously discussed. If the difference is not greater than the threshold, then the real-time tracking module updates statistics for the agent in Operation 1245 to reflect the agent's conforming performance on the communication with respect to actual handle time for the particular reason. Yet, if the difference > threshold, then the communication involves an instance in which the agent was non-conforming with respect to actual handle time for the particular reason. column 29 line 63- column 30 line 1: Thus, the real-time tracking module determines in Operation 1250 if the actual handle time is greater than the THT. As previously stated, an actual handle time greater than the THT indicates the agent took more time than was allotted to handle the reason for the communication and therefore, was non-conformant. While the opposite is true when the actual handle time is less than the THT. Here, the agent took too little of the time that was allotted to handle the reason for the communication therefore, was non-conformant.
Ouimette column 33 lines 14-23 the pop-up GUG 1510 provides the % calls overall, and for each reason, in which the agent was considered in conformance with respect to adhering to the THT, % calls in which the agent was considered out of conformance with respect to adhering to the THT by having an actual handle time significantly greater than the THT, and the % of calls in which the agent was considered out of conformance with respect to adhering to the THT by having an actual handle time significantly less than the THT), “and”
- “wherein the conformance data is determined based on a comparison of a sum of an actual total amount of time each of the one or more scheduled activities were actually performed by the agent and a sum of a scheduled total amount of time for each of the one or more scheduled activities in that date range” (Claims 1,9,11,19)
(Ouimette column 35 lines 9-11: noting a particular agent handling customer service calls at the contact center has fielded 500 calls during a work week that included one hundred calls.
Ouimette column 13 lines 3-15: display module starts a timer in Operation 425 to track amount (duration) of time the agent spends handling the communication, known as actual handle time [AHT]. The display module makes use of timer to measure amount of time the agent spends handing communication for a particular reason. Thus, the display module resets the timer upon a new reason for communication being identified and the elapsed time as indicated by the timer is recorded as the actual handle time [AHT] for the previous reason identified for the communication. As a result, the display module initially sets the applicable THT to a default of five minutes, begins the timer, and invokes the recording module. column 30 lines 18-23, 26-30: contact center track percent or sum of communications an agent handles in which the agent's performance is non-conformant with respect to [target handle time] THT because the performance involves an actual handle time significantly greater than the [target handle time] THT. Furthermore, if the actual handle time is less than the [target handle time] THT, then the real-time tracking module updates the statistics for the agent to reflect a non-conformant performance based on too low of an actual handle time with respect to the [target handle time] THT in Operation 1260)
Ouimette column 33 lines 14-23: The pop-up GUG 1510 provides the percentage or of calls overall [total or sum] in which the agent was considered in conformance with respect to adhering to the THT, the percentage of calls in which the agent was considered out of conformance with respect to adhering to the THT by having an actual handle time significantly > the THT, and the percentage of calls in which the agent was considered out of conformance with respect to adhering to the THT by having an actual handle time significantly < than the THT
Ouimette noting an example at column 3 lines 8-11: an actual handle time is determined for the communication representing the actual amount of time elapsed while the agent interacted with a party on the communication to address the reason of the communication. Specifically, Ouimette proposes at column 17 lines 19-33 specific [target handle time] THT for specific reasons such as a total of 15 minutes to handle a specific reason of communication. See column 22 lines 16-18 noting an example where the module initially sets the THT to a default of 5 minutes, begins the timer, and invokes the recording module. column 22 lines 23-31: the agent begins to converse with the party on the call and after 10 seconds, a keyword is identified in the conversation between the agent and the party that indicates the reason for the communication is the party has called to inquire about product info for an item. As a result, the display module sets the THT for this reason of 3 minutes as current THT. Later on, at column 22 lines 39-52: during the call (after another 2 minutes and 15 seconds), the party decides to place an order for the item and 2nd keyword is detected identifying 2nd reason for communication of placing an order. Accordingly, the module first invokes the recording module upon detecting the new reason for the communication and provides the recording module with the current time of the timer, which is 2 minutes and 25 seconds. As result, the recording module records an actual handle time of 2:25 minutes 835 for 1st reason. The module then sets the THT for 2nd reason to 10 minutes as current THT being applied to communication, sets a corresponding decrementing THT of 10 minutes as well and restarts the timer. Similarly column 18 lines 22-33. Further see column 26 lines 11-14: provides an example where the tagging module may read the records for inbound telephone calls received during a particular timeframe (such as a turn or a work day) and/or by a particular group of agents within the contact center. Specifically at Fig. 11 and column 27 lines 37-41 the tagging module determines whether 37 seconds > 20% of 180 seconds. Here, the difference is roughly 21% of [target handle time] THT. Thus, the tagging module determines in Operation 1145 that the communication warrants tagging as out of conformance. This is summarized below at Fig.11 step 1155 as follows: Is actual handle time [AHT] > Than THT? -> Yes -> step 1160: Tag Communication as non-conforming - Too High AHT. Specifically, as stated at column 27 lines 57-63: an actual handle time > THT indicates the agent took more time than allocated to handle the communication for the particular reason. Therefore, in this instance, the tagging module tags the communication as being out of conformance with respect to adhering to the THT by having an actual handle time significantly greater than the THT in Operation 1160. Similarly Fig.12 step 1250: Is actual handle time > Than THT ? -> Yes -> step 1255: Update agent’s stats for non-conform performance - Too High AHT. column 30 lines 13-23: if the actual handle time is greater than the THT, then the real-time tracking module updates the statistics for the agent to reflect a non-conformant performance based on too high of an actual handle time with respect to the THT in Operation 1255. For example, the contact center may track the percentage of communications an agent handles in which the agent's performance is considered non-conformant with respect to THT because the performance involves an actual handle time significantly greater than the THT).
- “” (Claims 1,9,11,19)
- “
- (Claims 1,9,11,19)
- “determine if any of the one or more agents requires coaching based on: a comparison of the adherence data to a goal amount of occurrences of a goal amount of adherence” (Claims 1,11) (Ouimette column 35 lines 41-45: noting particular agent is under performing with respect to taking too long to handle calls involving parties calling to place orders. Accordingly, the contact center may attempt to address this conclusion by providing the agent with more training in handling calls), “and a comparison of the conformance data to a goal amount of occurrences of a goal amount of conformance”; (Claims 1,9,11,19) (Ouimette column 3 lines 8-11, column 17 lines 19-33, column 22 lines 16-18, 23-31, 39-52, column 26 lines 11-14, column 27 lines 57-63, column 28 lines 15-29 and column 30 lines 13-23, emphasis on column 36 lines 14-21: Here, agent handled 150 calls involving parties calling to return items and 15 or 10% of those calls, were over THT of 5 minutes. In this instance, since the contact center has more accurately identified a deficiency of the agent, the contact center help to actually improve agent's efficiency by providing further training on fielding calls by parties returning items).
- “(Claims 1,9,11,19);
- “transmit an alert to each agent device of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching, wherein the alert comprises a link to information indicating why the agent of the one or more agents has been determined to require coaching”; (Claims 1,9,11,19)
(Ouimette column 37 lines 54-60: evaluate handle times for agents more accurately can help contact centers identify deficiencies. For instance, such evaluations can help identify deficiencies that lead to reasons why parties are contacting a contact center. For example, see Fig. 15 element 1510 showing a pop-up link of low performance. As explained by column 36 lines 14-21: the agent handled 150 calls involving parties calling to return items and fifteen of those calls, or 10% of those calls, were over the THT of 5 minutes. In this instance, since the contact center has more accurately identified a deficiency of the agent, the contact center may help to actually improve agent's efficiency by providing further training on fielding calls by parties returning items. Further see Figs.11-12 and column 30 lines 26-33: Further, if the actual handle time is less than the THT, then the real-time tracking module updates the statistics for the agent to reflect a non-conformant performance based on too low of an actual handle time with respect to the THT in Operation 1260. Again, depending on the embodiment, these percentages may be further broken down based on channels of communication and/or reasons for the communication. Once the real-time tracking module has completed evaluating the reason and disposition code, the real-time tracking module determines whether another reason and corresponding disposition code were identified for the communication in Operation 1265. If so, then the real-time tracking module returns to Operation 1220 and selects the next reason and corresponding disposition code and performs the same operations as discussed above for the newly selected reason and disposition code. Once the real-time tracking module has processed all of the reasons for the communication, the process flow ends. For example, at Fig.15 element 1510 Non-Conformance of 3% for Check Order Status and an overall non-conformance of 28% for too high AHT and a non-conformance of 5% for low AHT. column 12 line 62-column 13 line 2 noting the alarm includes both visual representation and a sound component)
- “display the alert on an agent dashboard on a graphical user interface in response to clicking the link” (Claims 1,9,11,19) (Ouimette Fig.15, column 33 lines 23-27:, pop-up GUI 1510 provides the agent with selection buttons 1515, 1520, 1525 at bottom of GUI 1510 to allow the agent to view his or her performance with respect to other channels of communication. For example, at Fig.15 element 1510 Non-Conformance of 3% for Check Order Status and overall non-conformance of 28% for too high AHT and a non-conformance of 5% for low AHT)
- ““
- “
- “(Claims 1,9,11,19)
* However *
Ouimette does not explicitly teach:
- “wherein the scheduled start and stop times and the scheduled total amount of time for each of the one or more scheduled activities are assigned by a supervisor device, the supervisor device configured to allow a supervisor to generate schedules including the scheduled activities based on: one or more staffing forecasts, and one or more scheduling preferences received from one or more of the agent devices”
- “wherein the supervisor device is communicating with the server over a network”,
- “execute the ACD on the supervisor device and on the server”
- “automatically schedule a coaching session with each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching during hours in which a workforce that performs same activities as the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching is larger than needed”;
- “continually monitor one or more of the agents that have been scheduled for the coaching session” “and”
- “for one or more of the agents that have been scheduled for the coaching session, automatically cancel the coaching session if an amount of nonadherence days based on the amount of time not in adherence during a predetermined subsequent period of time is less than during a first predetermined threshold”;
- “wherein one or more of the processors is configured so that a second graphical user interface displays, for each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching, a second link, which when clicked, allows the supervisor device to reschedule or cancel the agent's coaching session” as claimed.
* Nevertheless*
McIlwaine in analogous monitoring agent interaction and assessing training needs, teaches or at least suggests:
- “wherein the scheduled start and stop times and the scheduled total amount of time for each of the one or more scheduled activities are assigned by a supervisor device, the supervisor device configured to allow a supervisor to generate schedules including the scheduled activities” (McIlwaine ¶ [0060] 1st sentence: Figs.1-3 are directed to the scheduled delivery of content, such as training, to a constituent contact agent, such as call center agent. ¶ [0252] 3rd-4th sentences: Typically, the agent's supervisor, or some other member of the contact center's management, specifies a timeframe or time period during which an agent 40 should receive an assigned performance intervention. The assignment start date 1635 coincides with the beginning of that timeframe, while the complete-by date 1640 specifies or designates the end [or stop] of that assignment timeframe) “based on: one or more staffing forecasts” (McIlwaine ¶ [0084] 5th-7th sentences: This data is advantageously used by the training system to forecast when and if all agents or some agents should be available for training at some point in the future. For example, if the workload data history indicates that call volume drops significantly between 10 p.m. and midnight on Fridays, then the training system can, by leveraging data from other systems, forecast that call volume will drop next Friday evening. The training system 20 can thereby determine if an agent should be available for training at some point in the future, such as next Friday evening, based on the workload data history. ¶ [0085] If training system 20 determines at step 286 that the agent should be available at an upcoming time, the method proceeds through the Yes branch to step 287. If the system forecasts at step 286 that the agent will not be available at the upcoming time, the method proceeds through the No branch and returns. At step 287, the training system monitors predetermined agent and call center workload thresholds. If those thresholds are not exceeded, the system proceeds to step 288. If those workload thresholds are exceeded, the system returns to step 284 and updates the workload data history. ¶ [0095] 1st-2nd sentences: The term state or contact center state is used to refer to factors that describe or effect the contact center's overall operations. Contact center state includes measurements related to workload or activity level such as current call volume, historical call volume, and forecast call volume, each of which is sometimes described seasonally or over another increment of time. Other details at ¶ [0323]), “and one or more scheduling preferences received from one or more of the agent devices” (McIlwaine ¶ [0234] 4th sentence: agent's interaction with ACD 32 include agent 40 notifying ACD 32 of his/her availability to receive a performance intervention. ¶ [0015] 2nd sentence: each agent selects interventions according to personal preference. ¶ [0072] 2nd sentence: information delivery tool 104 preferably receives agent workload data and call center load data from ACD 32. ¶ [0068] 4th sentence: training system 20 is also preferably in communication with quality monitoring component 50 through communications network 54 so that training materials may be delivered to those agents most in need of training).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ouimette systems/methods to have include McIlwaine’s teachings to provide more engaging means for user with the goal to maximize productivity and effectiveness (McIlwaine ¶ [0007] in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F) such as by having improved or enhanced the performance, effectiveness, or efficiency of the agents of the call center (McIlwaine ¶ [0018] 1st sentence in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Ouimette column 38 lines 6-16 in view of McIlwaine ¶ [0348]
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar monitoring agents’ performance in a call center field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed same managerial, organizational and analytical function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Ouimette in view of McIlwaine, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like puzzle pieces in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the combination’s results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
* Further *
Judkins in analogues collecting reports for call center monitoring by supervisor teaches/suggest
- “wherein the supervisor device is communicating with the server over a network,
(Judkins column 2 lines 1-2: A supervisor computer is connected to … (ACD) server… column 25 lines 37-47: As noted before, the call center Supervisor server 116 of the call center system of the present invention communicates with the ACD server 110 via a TCP/IP link. The ACD server can send out updates every 1-5 seconds (by default) describing status changes of agents and incoming calls. The Supervisor server 116 through the Supervisor software application calculates and stores the information for viewing. The following real-time monitors can be available (Viewed by team, agent, DNIS, skill or entire call center): calls answered; calls abandoned; talk time; agent status; calls in queue; and agents in queue.
- “execute the ACD on the supervisor device and on the server”
(Judkins column 25 lines 37-47: As noted before, the call center Supervisor server 116 of the call center system communicates with the ACD server 110 via a TCP/IP link. The ACD server
can send out updates every 1-5 seconds (by default) describing status changes of agents and incoming calls. The Supervisor server 116 through the Supervisor Software application calculates and stores the information for viewing. The following real-time monitors can be available (Viewed by team, agent, DNIS, skill or entire call center): calls answered, calls abandoned, talked time, agent status, calls in queue and agents in queue. column 26 lines 29-35: The Supervisor application of the present invention, every 15 minutes (or as configured with the switch) has the ACD server write out statistics to the historical database 120 of the SQL server 118. Managers are able to view, drill, filter the presentation of these statistics and retrieve reports from this database using the same flexible supervisor platform that provides the real-time reporting).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Ouimette / McIlwaine systems/methods to have included Judkins’ teachings or suggestions to have better mitigated the dynamic and effective nature of contemporary call center system to quicky respond to changing conditions in a manner to allow real time report generation and control and tracking of calls within the call center and to further address the necessity of having custom application exchangeable across different platform (Judkins column 1 lines 41-60 in view of MPEP 2143 G and/or F). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Ouimette column 38 lines 6-16 in view of McIlwaine ¶ [0348] in further view of Judkins column 41 lines 54-61.
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar call center monitoring field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed same analytical and managerial function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Ouimette / McIlwaine in further view of Judkins, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
* Moreover *
McConnell in analogous management of agents within a contact center teaches/ suggests:
- “automatically schedule a coaching session with each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching during hours in which a workforce that performs same activities as the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching” (McConnell column 37 lines 2-15: automatically determine optimal times to initiate coaching sessions with agent instances. The embodiments allow end-user network 320 to provide conditions to management network 300, which uses the conditions to (i) determine whether a supervisor instance from end-user network 320 is available to administer a coaching session, (ii) determine segments of idle time for agent instances on end-user network 320, and (iii) initiate coaching sessions during the identified idle time segments, either to individual agent instances or groups of agent instances. This saves end-user network 320 time and resources, as there is no longer a need to allocate auxiliary agent instances and the challenge of having to pre-schedule/cancel coaching sessions at various times is resolved).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Ouimette/McIlwaine/Judkins’ systems / methods to have included McConnell’s teachings to have saved the end-user network time and resources, as there would no longer be a need to allocate auxiliary agent instances (McConnell column 37 lines 12-15 in view of MPEP 2143 G). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skills of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Ouimette column 38 lines 6-16 in view of McIlwaine ¶ [0348] in further view of Judkins column 41 lines 54-61 in further view of McConnel column 1 lines 50-60, column 40 lines 33-42.
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar management of agents within a contact center field of endeavor. In such combination each element would have merely performed same analytical and managerial function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
* Further *
Dezonno in analogous management of agents clarifies, considers, teaches or suggests:
- “workforce” “larger than needed” (Dezonno Claim 28: automatic call distributor matching a group having too many agents with a group having not enough agents and transferring an agent with appropriate qualifications from the group having too many agents to the group having not enough agents. Claim 29: determine whether to reassign agents by matching a group having too many agents with a group having not enough agents and transferring an agent with appropriate qualifications from the group having too many agents to the group having not enough agents based upon training of the neural network, the respective group status of the agent groups and at least one of the operating parameters)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Ouimette/McIlwaine/Judkins/McConnel’s systems & methods to have included Dezonno’s teachings or suggestions to have provided a more rigorous modeling (Dezonno column 6 lines 37-46 in view of MPEP 2143 G) and better management of agents without overwhelming them (Dezonno column 2 lines 15-20 in view of MPEP 2143 F and/or G). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skills of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Ouimette column 38 lines 6-16 in view of McIlwaine ¶ [0348] in view of Judkins column 41 lines 54-61 in view of McConnel column 1 lines 50-60, column 40 lines 33-42, in further view of Dezonno column 6 lines 58-67.
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as mere combination of old elements in a similar work management field of endeavor. In such combination each element would have merely performed same analytical and managerial function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins / McConnel in further view of Dezonno above, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like puzzle pieces in logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the combination results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
* Furter still while*
Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins / and McConnell column 38 lines 37-44 in further view of
Dezonno already provides the basis for agent coaching, nevertheless
Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins / McConnell / Dezonno does not explicitly recite:
- “continually monitor one or more of the agents that have been scheduled for the coaching session”; as claimed.
Minnich however in analogous call center compliance management teaches or suggests:
- “continually monitor one or more of the agents that have been scheduled for the coaching session”; (Minnich ¶ [0017] 9th sentence: [call center monitor] CCM 124 include a web server, with Minnich further clarifying at ¶ [0023], [call center monitor server] CCM 124 calculate a schedule violation count associated with agent 132. The schedule violation count may include the total number of schedule violations made by the agent 132 during recent time period, such as during previous 90 days. ¶ [0025] 3rd sentence: the determination may occur periodically such as, for example, once per day, once per work shift, once per scheduled time interval, or continuously) “and”
- “for one or more of the agents that have been scheduled for the coaching session, automatically cancel the coaching session if an amount of nonadherence days based on the amount of time not in adherence during a predetermined subsequent period of time is less than during a first predetermined threshold”; (Minnich ¶ [0037], [0038], [0042] noting examples where a manager using the automation of a schedule adherence [software] tool requests removal of the schedule violation after the CCM [call center monitor server] determines whether the schedule violation is less than the threshold. For example, per ¶ [0023] 2nd sentence: The schedule violation count include the total number of schedule violations made by the agent 132 during a recent time period, such as during the previous 90 days. ¶ [0025] 3rd sentence: the determination may occur periodically such as, for example, once per day, once per work shift, once per scheduled time interval, or continuously. ¶ [0026] 3rd-4th sentences: if the threshold is 5 minutes, and the agent is 4 minutes late, the schedule violation may be considered to be less than threshold. Alternatively, for example, if the threshold is 5 minutes, and the agent is 6 minutes late, the schedule violation may be considered to be greater than threshold. In alternative embodiment, the CCM 124 may determine whether the schedule violation is greater than the threshold plus a constant value (e.g. 2 minutes). ¶ [0028] 3rd sentence: The schedule violation information may further include a violation ID (i.e., a unique identifier associated with the schedule violation), a time stamp, break details, an amount of time over the threshold, and other details about the schedule violation.
¶ [0038] 2nd sentence: For each schedule violation made by the agent 132, the individual violation status web page 270 includes information about the type of schedule violation, a time of occurrence, a description, how the schedule violation count of the agent 132 is affected by the schedule violation, and a link to request removal of the schedule violation from the agent record. Also, the term automatically can also be considered in light of MPEP 2144.04 III)
- “wherein one or more of the processors is configured so that a second graphical user interface displays, for each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching, a second link, which when clicked, allows the supervisor device to reschedule or cancel the agent's coaching session” (Claims 1,9,11,19)
(Minnich Figs.2e-g and ¶ [0038] 2nd-3rd sentences: For each schedule violation made by agent 132, the individual violation status web page 270 includes info about the type of schedule violation, a time of occurrence, a description, how schedule violation count of agent 132 is affected by the schedule violation, and a link to request removal of the schedule violation from the agent record. The individual violation status web page 270 further includes a form that enables the manager 134 to request removal of the schedule violations from the agent record. ¶ [0039] method 200 then proceeds to block 236 where the CCM 124 removes the schedule violation from the agent record. The method 200 then proceeds to block 238 where the CCM 124 sends a notification e-mail to the agent 132 and the agent manager 134. The notification e-mail may include that the schedule violation was removed from the agent record. In an embodiment, the notification e-mail may include schedule violation removal confirmation e-mail 280, illustrated in Fig.2f. The method 200 then ends at block 221).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the Ouimette/McIlwaine/Judkins/McConnel/Dezonno’s systems and methods to have included Minnich’s teachings or suggestions to have provided a more accurate assessment of violations for fairer analysis of agents as motivated by an improved call center complaisance management (Minnich ¶ [0005], ¶ [0023]-¶ [0027],¶ [0043], in view of MPEP 2143 G). If necessary, the term “automatically” is also tested per MPEP 2111, and MPEP 2144.04 III, the latter stating that providing an automatic means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skills of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Ouimette column 38 lines 6-16 in view of McIlwaine ¶ [0348] in view of Judkins column 41 lines 54-61 in view of McConnel column 1 lines 50-60, column 40 lines 33-42, in view of Dezonno column 6 lines 58-67, in further view of Minnich ¶ [0044].
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as mere combination of old elements in similar call center compliance management field of endeavor. In such combination each element would have merely performed same managerial and analytical function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing ability to combine the elements evidenced by Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins/McConnel/Dezonno in view of Minnich, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like puzzle pieces in logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the combination results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Claims 5,14 Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins / McConnel / Dezonno / Minnich teaches all limitations in parent Claims 1,11.
Ouimette further teaches “one or more processors is configured so that the second graphical user interface displays, for each of the of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching”
- “a result of a comparison of an objective and the adherence data” (Ouimette Fig.15 and column 33 lines 8-14: a pop- up GUI 1510 provide the agent's performance info in Fig.15. Here pop-up GUI 1510 provides the agent with statistics on agent's performance with respect to adhering to THTS for various reasons on communications involving telephone calls. Specifically, pop-up GUG 1510 provides the result of % of calls overall, and for each reason, in which the agent was considered in conformance with respect to adhering to the THT)
- “a link, which when clicked, causes the one or more processors to display a report in the second graphical user interface” (Ouimette column33 lines 23-27: the pop- p GUI 1510 provides the agent with selection buttons 1515,1520,1525 at the bottom of the GUI 1510 to allow the agent to view his or her performance report with respect to the channels of communication)
Ouimette does not explicitly teach as claimed:
- “a schedule of the agent's coaching session scheduled for the agent of the of the one or more agents”
McIlwaine however in analogous monitoring agent interaction and assessing training needs, teaches or suggests
- “a schedule of the agent's coaching session scheduled for the agent of the of the one or more agents” (McIlwaine ¶ [0073] last two sentence: the prompt may takes the form of a pop-up screen delivered to the agent's terminal displaying a message indicating that training is now available for the agent).
Rationales to modified/combined Ouimette/McIlwaine are above and reincorporated. Also,
Rationales to modified/combined Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins / McConnel / Dezonno / Minnich are above.
Claim 15 Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins / McConnel / Dezonno / Minnich teaches all limitations in claim 11 above.
Ouimette does not recite: “for each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching, determining at least one proposed date and time for the coaching based on the agent's work schedule and net staffing during the at least one proposed date and time”
McIlwaine however in analogous art of monitoring agent interaction and assessing training needs, teaches or suggests: “for each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching, determining at least one proposed date and time for the coaching based on the agent's work schedule and net staffing during the at least one proposed date and time” (McIlwaine ¶ [0030] Figs.7A-B, illustrate forecasting the state of a contact center and managing performance intervention delivery based on the forecast. ¶ [0252] 5th sentence: a time period that training system 20 makes a CBT course available for remote access can define the assignment start date and the assignment complete-by date, for example. For example, Fig. 3C steps 286: should agent be available? -> Yes-> step 287 Workloads exceed thresholds? -> step 300: deliver training materials. Also ¶ [0265] 2nd - 3rd sentences: ranking engine 1600 receives the table of course data 1610 and outputs an organized arrangement, list, or table 1645 that specifies a preferred sequence or order 1650 of performance interventions for receipt by the agents 40. The output table 1645 can specify the performance intervention delivery sequence for individual agents 40, for groups of agents 40, or for the entire agent staff 40. For example, at Fig.17, ¶ [0270] At decision Step 1720, the ranking engine 1600 determines whether an agent 40 has been assigned to a new working group or a new team of the contact center 400. A personnel change of a contact center team, such as shuffling an agent 40 from one team to another, typically calls for refreshing the course sequence 1650 since each team may have a distinct curriculum of performance interventions. Individual team supervisors may place different levels of emphasis or importance on specific performance interventions. If a working group has undergone a personnel change, then at Step 1720, Process 1700 branches to and executes Step 1750).
Rationales to modified/combined Ouimette/McIlwaine are above and reincorporated. Also,
Rationales to modified/combined Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins / McConnel / Dezonno / Minnich are above.
Claims 8,18 Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins / McConnel / Dezonno / Minnich teaches all limitations at parent claims 1,11.
Ouimette still recites at column 30 lines 18-23: contact center track % of communications an agent handles in which the agent's performance is considered non-conformant with respect to the [target handle time] THT because the performance involves an actual handle time significantly greater than the THT. Column 31 lines 54-58: For example, an agent may be considered a high performer if 90% of the communications the agent fields using the same channel of communication and for the same reason as the communication that needs to be routed were in conformance with respect to actual handle time. column 32 lines 1-7: For example, an agent may be considered a low performer if 95% percent of the communications the agent fields using the same channel of communication and for the same reason as the communication that needs to be routed were non-conformance (e.g., were tagged as non-conformant) with respect to actual handle time.
McIlwaine ¶ [0146] 2nd sentence also recites personnel in the contact center 400 typically set these levels 480 according to managerial objectives;
McConnel column 32 line 67-column 33 line 2: end-user network 320 to simply specify objectives.
* However *
Ouimette together with McIlwaine/Judkins/McConnel/Dezonno does not recite: “wherein the second graphical user interface allows a supervisor to select the date range and an objective, wherein the objective is the goal amount of occurrences of a goal amount of adherence to occur at the goal frequency” as claimed.
Minnich however in analogues art of call center compliance management teaches or suggests: “wherein the second graphical user interface allows a supervisor to select the date range” “and an objective, wherein the objective is the goal amount of occurrences of a goal amount of adherence to occur at the goal frequency”
(Minnich Fig.2d and ¶ [0035] 3rd-4th sentences: agent manager 134 filter the contents using a variety of parameters including a date range. In an embodiment, the CCM 124 may provide a variety of other status reports relating to schedule adherence or goals. For example, at ¶ [0019] The call center may have service level goals for customer segments. For example, one customer segment include business customers for whom the service level goals may include answering 90% of telephone calls from the customers within 2 minutes. A second customer segment might include, residential customers for whom the service level goals include answering 90% of telephone calls within 5 minutes. In an embodiment, the call center support only one customer segment. In an alternative embodiment, the call center support a plurality of customer segments).
Rationales to have modified/combined Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins / McConnel / Dezonno / Minnich are above.
Claims 10,20 Ouimette/McIlwaine/Judkins/McConnel/Dezonno/Minnich teaches all limitations in parent claim 9,19 above
Ouimette teaches/suggest “the conformance data further comprises, for each of one or more dates in the date range, for each of the one or more agents, a percentage of conformance for the agent based on a comparison of a sum of the actual total amount of time each of the scheduled activities were actually performed by the agent and a sum of the scheduled total amount of time for each of the scheduled activities on that date.
(Ouimette column 26 lines 11-14: provides example where the tagging module read the records for inbound telephone calls received during a particular timeframe (such as a turn or work day) and/or by a particular group of agents within the contact center. Fig.15, column 33 lines 14-23 pop-up GUG 510 provides the % of calls overall, and for each reason the percentage of calls in which the agent was considered in conformance and out of conformance to the THR, as well as the % of calls in which the agent was considered out of conformance with respect to the THR by having an actual handle time significantly greater than the THT, and the % of calls in which the agent was out of conformance with respect to the THT by having an actual handle time significantly less than the THT. column 28 lines 23-25: the threshold may be defined as 20% when the THT applied was 30 minutes and as 25% when the THT applied was ten minutes. Specifically at Fig.11 and column 27 lines 37-41 the tagging module determines whether 37 seconds > 20% of 180 seconds. Here, the difference is roughly 21% of [target handle time] THT. Thus, the tagging module determines in Operation 1145 that the communication warrants tagging as out of conformance. column 30 lines 18-23: the contact center may track the percentage of communications an agent handles in which the agent' s performance is considered non-conformant with respect to THT because the performance involves an actual handle time significantly greater than the THT).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 2,12,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Ouimette/McIlwaine/Judkins/McConnel/Dezonno/Minnich applied to claims 1,11 above, in view of
Kosiba, US 20020184069 A1 hereinafter Kosiba. As per,
Claims 2,12 Ouimette/McIlwaine/Judkins/McConnel/Dezonno/Minnich teaches all the limitations in claims 1,11. Furthermore,
Ouimette teaches/suggests “wherein the adherence data comprises, for each of one or more dates in the date range, for each of the one or more agents, a percentage of adherence…”
(Ouimette column 35 lines 9-11: Here, a particular agent handling customer service calls at a contact center has fielded 500 calls during a work week that included 100 calls. For example at Fig.15, column 33 lines 14-23: the pop - up GUG 1510 provides the percentage of calls overall , and for each reason , in which the agent was considered in conformance with respect to adhering to the THT, the percentage of calls in which the agent was considered out of conformance with respect to adhering to the THT by having an actual handle time significantly greater than the THT. For example, at Fig.15, pop-up GUI 1510 the overall conformance is 67%)
Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins / McConnel / Dezonno / Minnich as a combination does not teach “percentage of adherence for the agent of the one or more agents based on a comparison of: a sum of the amount of time the agent was in adherence or a sum of the amount of time the agent was not in adherence for each of the scheduled activities on that date, and a sum of the scheduled total amount of time for each of the scheduled activities on that date”. Yet,
Kosiba in analogous adherence analysis art teaches or suggests the combination of:
- “a sum of the amount of time the agent was in adherence or a sum of the amount of time the agent was not in adherence for each of the scheduled activities on that date” (Kosiba ¶ [0053] 3rd-5th sentences: call interval data includes for each interval call volume (e.g 400 calls), average handle time (e.g 2 minutes), average wait time, service level (e.g. of the proportion of calls answered in less than or equal to a specified number of seconds (e.g. 80% within 20 seconds), and average call duration. ACD 110 also sends call-by-call data to the CIS 125. The call-by-call data includes the wait time of the call, the employee that handled the call, the handle time of the call, time to abandon (if applicable), the amount of after call work or casework required, and details on the customer order, purchases, or other activity (if applicable). ¶ [0123] 1st-3rd sentences: staff total fields 945 include CSR utilization field 970, schedule adherence field 971 and effective staff field 972. CSR utilization field is output of planning and analysis system 215 and corresponds to % of time that a phone agent (i.e CSR) actually servicing calls rather than waiting for calls. For example, if utilization is 90%, then a phone agent is spending 90% of his or her time servicing calls and 10% waiting for calls. Figs.12A-D,13A-B for examples), “and”
- “a sum of the scheduled total amount of time for each of the scheduled activities on that date” (Kosiba ¶ [0123] 4th-6th sentences: schedule adherence field 970 is estimate of the % of the total scheduled phoneagent work hours that is actually spent not either servicing calls or waiting for calls. In other words, the actual time that a phone agent spends servicing calls or waiting for calls is less than the total time that the phone agent spends at work because of the time spent on work breaks, going to the bathroom, and on other activities at work not related to servicing calls or waiting for calls. The schedule adherence information is provided by the WFMS. ¶ [0129] The total Man-Days worked by the staff of the management unit is then determined by simply adding the total Man-Days worked by full time staff to the total Man-Days worked by part time staff (step 1035). This number is then multiplied by the schedule adherence to get a number that corresponds to the actual number of Man-Days spent servicing calls or waiting on calls (step 1040). For example, assuming total Man-Days worked by the full time staff is 2100, the total Man-Days worked by part-time staff is 800, the schedule adherence is 85%, and the number of full-time CSR work days in the month is 21).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ouimette/ McIlwaine/ Judkins/ McConnel/Dezonno/Minnich’s system/method to have included Kosiba’s teachings or suggestions in order to have mitigated the inefficient, prior techniques to allow a necessary analysis for effective contact center management (Kosiba ¶ [0004] 3rd sentence, ¶ [0011],¶ [0125]-¶ [0129] in view of MPEP 2143 G)
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor dealing with adherence analysis in a call center. In such combination, each element would have merely performed the same managerial and analytical function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced above by Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins / McConnel / Dezonno / Minnich in further view of Kosiba, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Claim 13 Ouimette/McIlwaine/Judkins/McConnel/Dezonno/Minnich/Kosiba teaches all limitations in claim 12.
Ouimette does not teach
- “allowing a supervisor to select, through the second graphical user interface, for each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching, whether to transmit a report along with the alert to the agent of the one or more agents”. Nevertheless,
McIlwaine in analogous monitoring agent interaction and assess training needs teaches - “allowing a supervisor to select, through the second graphical user interface, for each of the one or more agents that have been determined to require coaching, whether to transmit a report along with the alert to the agent of the one or more agents” .
(McIlwaine Fig. 3C step 302: Workloads exceed thresholds?->No-> step 300: Deliver training materials over network etc. Similarly, Fig. 12 decision making steps 1220 to 1260, Fig.14 steps 14400->1470, Fig. 15 steps 1510->1550, Fig17 steps 1710->1750, Fig18, steps 1810->1860, Fig19 A steps 1905->1945,Fig25,2540-> 2550).
Rationales to have modified/combined Ouimette/McIlwaine are above and reincorporated.
Rationales to modified/combined Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins / McConnel / Dezonno / Minnich / Kosiba are above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Ouimette/McIlwaine/Judkins/McConnel/Dezonno/Minnich/Kosiba applied to claim 2 above, in view of
Karl H. Koster US 8681955 B1 hereinafter Koster. As per,
Claim 3 Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins / McConnel / Dezonno / Minnich / Kosiba combination teaches or suggests all limitations in parent claim 2. Further,
Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins / McConnel / Dezonno / Minnich / Kosiba as mapped supra determine[s] if any of the one or more agents require coaching. Yet,
Ouimette/McIlwaine/Judkins/McConnel/Dezonno/Minnich/Kosiba does not teach as claimed: “the one or more processors are configured to determine if any of the one or more agents require coaching by, for each of the one or more agents”:
- “determining an amount of nonadherence days in the date range that the percentage of adherence is less than or equal to the goal amount of adherence”, “and”
- “determining if the amount of nonadherence days at a goal frequency is greater than or equal to the goal amount of occurrences of the goal amount of adherence at the goal frequency”.
* Nevertheless *
Koster in analogues art of compliance analysis in a call center teaches or suggests:
- “determining an amount of nonadherence days in the date range that the percentage of adherence is less than or equal to the goal amount of adherence”, (Koster column 6 lines 38-49: the AR [abandon rate] is measured on a daily basis. This approach to determining the AR is termed a day-based. To determine the average AR over a time period, each day's AR is used to compute an average AR over the time period. In many implementations, a 3% maximum average AR limit is used. It is axiomatic that if each day's AR during a time period is less than limit (e.g. 3%), then overall AR for that time period must also be less than the limit. Thus, it may be sufficient to prove compliance with federal regulations for given time period showing each day in that time period is within compliance limit) “and”
- “determining if the amount of nonadherence days at a goal frequency is greater than or equal to the goal amount of occurrences of the goal amount of adherence at the goal frequency”
(Koster column 6 line 49-61: this approach does not indicate whether compliance for the campaign was achieved over a number of days or one of the days was not in compliance. Specifically, measuring the AR on a daily basis as opposed to determining running average over some time period (e.g. 30 days or some other multiple) for compliance purposes does not provide an aggregate indication of the compliance rate based on the call volume during the time period. Second, measuring the daily AR rate by itself may not readily facilitate maximizing the performance of the predictive dialer. That is, the predictive dialer may not necessarily know how close to the limit it can operate on a daily basis and still be within compliance over a number of days. Column 7 lines 5-14, 29-46: The fourth row 220 shows for each day the compliance rate (CR) which is the number of compliant calls divided by the total number of calls answered by persons. Similarly, the AR shown in the fifth row 225 is determined by dividing the number of abandoned calls by the total number of calls answered by a live called party person. The AR can also be easily derived according to equation 2: AR=1-CR Equ. (2). It is apparent that the running average AR may vary depending on the method of computation (at least after first day). In Fig.2, the running average AR for the initial day is the same since it is the first day. However, thereafter there is a divergence. In this example, a call center administrator focusing on the running average AR based on a day-based running average (e.g., row 235) may presume that after first day, all is well since the running average AR of 2.8% is less than the 3% limit. However, after 2nd day, the administrator determine the target AR in predictive dialer is set to too high since the running average AR is now 3.15%, and he may adjust the pacing level accordingly to a lower amount, resulting in a running average AR of 2.87% for 3rd day. Note that for Day 3, Day 4, Day 5, the running average AR for each day is less than the target 3%. While the running average AR for Day 2 was slightly above the target rate of 3% at 3.15%, the running average of the campaign appears to be in conformance. However, if conformance is measured based on the number of calls (e.g a call-based running average, row 230), then the conformance for Day 2 was actually worse than it appears under a day-based approach (which is 3.36% versus 3.15%). This is because there were four times as many calls made on Day 2 relative to Day 1. Thus, the running average AR by Day 2 is too high, remains over the limit on Day 3, reaches the limit on Day 4, and by Day 5 when the campaign ends, exceeds the allowable rate of 3%. In summary, using the day-based running average misleads the administrator into thinking the center is in compliance whereas the calls-based approach indicates it is not in compliance).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins / McConnel / Dezonno / Minnich / Kosiba’s “system” to have included Koster teachings to have provided the coaching analysis of Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins / McConnel / Dezonno / Minnich / Kosiba a more rigorous assessment to minimize discrepancy when the campaign lasts a long time and when each day has approximately same number of calls (Koster column 7 lines 59 - column 8 line 30 in view of MPEP 2143 G). Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor of compliance analysis in a call center. In such combination each element would have merely performed same managerial and analytical function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins / McConnel / Dezonno / Minnich / Kosiba in view of Koster, the to be combined elements would have fitted together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Claim 4 Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins / McConnel / Dezonno / Minnich / Kosiba / Koster’s combination teaches or suggests all limitations in parent claim 3.
Ouimette/McIlwaine/Judkins does not “cancel the coaching session if a difference between the amount of nonadherence days during the predetermined subsequent period of time at a goal frequency and the amount of nonadherence days during the date range at the goal frequency is less than a second predetermined threshold; wherein the predetermined subsequent period of time is between after the date range ends and a time that the agent was scheduled for the coaching session” as claimed.
McConnell in analogous management of agents within a contact center teaches/suggests:
- “cancel the coaching session if a difference between the amount of nonadherence days during the predetermined subsequent period of time at a goal frequency and the amount of nonadherence days during the date range at the goal frequency is less than a second predetermined threshold; wherein the predetermined subsequent period of time is between after the date range ends and a time that the agent was scheduled for the coaching session” (McConnell column 9 lines 40-49 during operations workforce management server 324 receive information from communication distributor 324 regarding expected communication volumes from customer(s) 330. Using this data, workforce management server 326 may generate schedules for agent instances to cover the expected volume. For example, the workforce management server 326 generate a schedule for agent instance 322A that stipulates: work on Monday from 8 AM-5 PM, work on Wednesday from 4 PM-8 PM, and so on. column 11 lines 56-63: workforce management server 326 utilize the received data to inform decisions regarding the scheduling of agent instances. For example, if communication distributor 324 reports to workforce management server 326 that an influx of calls occurs every day around noon, workforce management server 326 assign schedules for agent instances that are able to satisfy such demand. column 36 lines 49-59: To ensure availability of agent instances and supervisors instances, end-user network 320 often pre-schedules coaching sessions based on forecasted communication volume and/or forecasted work segments for agent instances. But if end-user network 320 experiences a higher communication volume than forecasted [or less current capacity than forecasted], the pre-scheduled coaching sessions may be rescheduled or even canceled so that the agent instances remain available to service the additional communications. This negatively impacts the ability for end-user network 320 to consistently deliver coaching sessions to agent instances. Column 14 line 64-column 15 line 10: as noted previously, at least two types of triggers may be supported by the rule design tool. Frequency - based triggers may cause a rule to be executed at one or more specified times. For example, a frequency-based trigger may be scheduled to execute every X minutes, hourly, daily, weekly monthly, at a specified time), or to repeat at a user-specified interval. Event-based triggers may cause a rule to be evaluated when an event occurs on management network 300 or end - user network 320. For example, event based triggers may be based on events occurring on a training [or coaching] module trans mitted to an agent instance, etc. Similarly column 26 lines 52-65. Further, as stated by McConnell at column 38 lines 45-63: at (iv) input data indicate that an agent instance’s upcoming work segment must be available in order to receive the coaching session, meaning that the agent instance should not be scheduled for other conflicting activity. Also, at (iv) a minimum time between coaching sessions to ensure that a particular agent doesn’t receive two coaching sessions back-to-back. Then at block 2020 of Fig. 20, as further stated by McConnell at column 39 line 4-10: the computing device determines whether the conditions specified in (iv) of block 2010 are met by the current state determined in block 2020. If the conditions are not satisfied the coaching session is not delivered at step 240).
Rationales to modified/combined Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins / McConnel are above and reincorporated. Also,
Rationales to modified/combined Ouimette / McIlwaine / Judkins / McConnel / Dezonno / Minnich / Kosiba / Koster are above.
Conclusion
Following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Ren et al, Call center outsourcing, Coordinating staffing level and service quality, Management Science, 54, no 2, p369-p383, Feb 2008, teaching at p. 376 2nd column ¶5 to p.377 1st column the non observable efforts of supervision and training
WO 2007106113 A2 teaching training a customer service representative by analysis of telephonic interaction between customer and contact center
US 10021245 B1 Aural communication status indications provided to an agent in a contact center
US 10194027 B1 Reviewing call checkpoints in agent call recording in a contact center
US 10237405 B1 Management of checkpoint meta-data for call recordings in a contact center
US 10289974 B1 Establishing a target handle time for a communication in a contact center
US 10380522 B1 Asset allocation evaluation system
US 10440181 B1 Adaptive real-time conversational systems and methods
US 10462295 B1 Communication attempts management system for managing a predictive dialer in a contact center
US 10623233 B1 Live monitoring to trigger automation
US 11068904 B1 Providing aggregated statistical information relating to customer representative's performance
US 11089157 B1 Agent speech coaching management using speech analytics
US 11170336 B2 Systems and methods supervisor whisper coaching priority
recommendation engine for contact centers
US 11463585 B1 Systems and methods for electronic request routing and distribution
US 20030086555 A1 System and method for increasing completion of training
US 20030185378 A1 Queued task/queued resource state forecaster
US 20060143116 A1 Business analytics strategy transaction reporter method and system
US 20060147025 A1 Contact center business modeler
US 20060188085 A1 Call center study method and system
US 20060203993 A1 Automatic call distribution system using computer network-based communication
US 20060256953 A1 Method and system for improving workforce performance in a contact center
US 20060265090 A1 Method and software for training a customer service representative by analysis of a telephonic interaction between a customer and a contact center
US 20080260122 A1 Method and system for selecting and navigating to call examples for playback or analysis
US 20060271418 A1 Method for discovering problem agent behaviors
US 20070160964 A1 Tool and method for personnel development and talent management
based on experience
US 20070206768 A1 Systems and methods for workforce optimization and integration
US 20080240405 A1 Method and system for aggregating and analyzing data relating to a
plurality of interactions between a customer and a contact center and generating business process analytics
US 20090089153 A1 Broad-based incremental training sessions for company representatives in contact handling systems
US 20090282348 A1 Method and system for enhanced management of meeting cancellations
US 20100120000 A1 Method and Business Form for Employee Management and Improvement
US 20100125460 A1 Training/coaching system for a voice-enabled work environment
US 20110246526 A1 Service level agreement based storage access
US 20110307957 A1 Method and System for Managing and Monitoring Continuous
Improvement in Detection of Compliance Violations
US 20120254048 A1 System and method for regulatory security compliance management
US 20130129071 A1 System and method for real-time customized agent training
US 20140050309 A1 System and method for real-time customized agent training
US 20130136252 A1 System and Method for Generating Forecasts and Analysis of Contact
Center Behavior For Planning Purposes
US 20140219439 A1 System and method for automating skillset additions
US 20140255895 A1 System and method for training agents of a contact center
US 20140270135 A1 Computer-Implemented System And Method For Efficiently Facilitating Appointments Within A Call Center Via An Automatic Call Distributor
US 20140278690 A1 Accommodating schedule variances in work allocation for shared service delivery
US 20140335485 A1 Methods and systems for training a crowdworker
US 20150281436 A1 Recording user communications
US 20150310752 A1 Integrated Employee Training and Performance Evaluation System
US 20160036652 A1 Systems and methods for managing service level agreements of support tickets using a chat session
US 20160088153 A1 Method and System for Prediction of Contact Allocation, Staff Time Distribution, and Service Performance Metrics in a Multi-Skilled Contact
Center Operation Environment
US 20160100059 A1 Agent non-primary skill improvement training method
US 20170054851 A1 System and method for agent driven system training
US 20180091654 A1 System and method for automatic quality management in a contact center environment
US 20190019120 A1 System and method for rendering compliance status dashboard
US 20190132449 A1 Method and system for dynamically changing a service level agreement
US 20190347598 A1 System and method for evaluating the performance of a person in a
company
US 20200202282 A1 System and method for calculating availability points for workforce
scheduling
US 20200228655 A1 Communication session hold time management in a contact center
US 20200252306 A1 Target availability threshold calculation mechanism
US 20210258424 A1 Systems and methods for dynamically controlling conversations and
workflows based on multi-modal conversation monitoring
US 20220029874 A1 Optimized Automation Triggering in Live-Monitoring of Agent Instances
US 20230031855 A1 Adaptive Rule Trigger Thresholds For Managing Contact Center
Interaction Time
US 20230308340 A1 Live-Monitoring to Trigger Agent Instance Modification Actions via an In-
House Management Network
US 5535256 A Method and system for automatically monitoring the performance quality of
call center service representatives
US 5946375 A Method and system for monitoring call center service representatives
US 6278777 B1 System for managing agent assignments background of the invention
US 6628777 B1 Method and system for scheduled delivery of training to call center agents
US 6687682 B1 System for discounting in a bidding process based on quality of service
US 6775377 B2 Method and system for delivery of individualized training to call center
agents
US 6922466 B1 System and method for assessing a call center
US 7636433 B2 Timeline visualization for call center processes
US 7769622 B2 System and method for capturing and publishing insight of contact center
users whose performance is above a reference key performance indicator
US 7853006 B1 Systems and methods for scheduling call center agents using quality data
and correlation-based discovery
US 8209218 B1 Apparatus, system and method for processing, analyzing or displaying data
related to performance metrics
US 8396205 B1 Systems and methods of supervising contacts
US 8488769 B1 Non-scheduled training for an agent in a call center
US 8649499 B1 Communication analytics training management system for call center
agents
US 9325843 B1 Real-time monitoring of agent adherence
US 9736305 B1 Real-time monitoring of agent adherence
US 8811597 B1 Contact center performance prediction
US 8834175 B1 Downloadable training content for contact center agents
US 8995648 B1 Processing an outbound call campaign having multiple abandonment rates
US 9112974 B1 Checkpoint widget for indicating checkpoint status information to an agent
in a contact center
US 9148512 B1 Routing user communications to agents
US 9160853 B1 Dynamic display of real time speech analytics agent alert indications in a contact center
US 9160854 B1 Reviewing call checkpoints in agent call recordings in a contact center
US 9225833 B1 Management system for using speech analytics to enhance contact center agent conformance
US 9313332 B1 Routing user communications to agents
US 9936066 B1 Reviewing portions of telephone call recordings in a contact center using
topic meta-data records
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 OCTAVIAN ROTARU whose telephone number is (571)270-7950. The examiner can normally be reached on 571.270.7950 from 9AM to 6PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICIA H MUNSON, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Octavian Rotaru/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 A
February 19th, 2026
1 In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck &Co. 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
2 TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
3 BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018); as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) C. ii.
4 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 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);
5 Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
6 FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
7 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
8 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
9 buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
10 buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
11 Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362
12 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts");
Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
13 OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
14 Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
15 Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values);
Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012)