DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed 05/10/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC § 101:
Applicant submits on page 1 of the remarks that the claims, as amended, are not directed to an abstract idea because they are directed to a specific improvement to automatic schedule generation in a WFM system. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that under step 2A of the analysis of claims per the Alice framework, if a claim limitation covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant submits on page 3 of the remarks that the amended claims recite significantly more in the ordered combination. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional elements recited in the claims are just applying the use of a generic computer environment to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements do not provide improvement to the computer technology and do not do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, the independent claims (claims 1 and 12) are directed, in part, to a method and a system for increasing productivity of agents in a contact center. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-2, 6-10 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process and claim 12 is directed to a system which falls under the statutory category of a machine. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes managing personal behavior.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to increasing productivity of agents in a contact center…; …upon selection of a schedule generation…; receiving an activity type, a period for agents shift placement and a preconfigured number of metrics and attributed weight thereof; (ii) retrieving historical-data of the preconfigured number of performance metrics from the data store of agents' metrics and the data store of applications for each scheduled-shift during a preconfigured period; wherein the preconfigured number of metrics are aggregated from different applications and the metrics are at least one of: (i) level of adherence; (ii) quality score; (iii) Average Handle Time (AHT); (iv) agent sentiment score; (v) available time; (vi) average speed of answer (vii) concurrent time; (viii) consult time; (ix) working time; (x) agent contracts; (xi) holds; (xii) refused contacts; (xiii) takeovers; (xiv) occupancy; (xv) active talk time; and (xvi) working rate, and wherein the retrieved historical-data of the preconfigured number of performance metrics are converted to a percentage value for calculating a weighted sum of the retrieved historical-data of the preconfigured number of performance metrics, (iii) calculating a weighted sum of the retrieved historical-data of the preconfigured number of performance metrics and the selected attributed weight thereof to yield an Agent Productivity Score (APS) for each scheduled-shift in the preconfigured period, wherein a nature of each preconfigured attributed weight is selected from (i) positive; (ii) zero; and (iii) negative, and wherein for each performance metric, an attributed weight is determined as positive when a performance metric has a positive correlation with the APS, the attributed weight is determined as zero when a performance metric is not considered for APS calculation and the attributed weight is determined as negative when the performance metric has a negative correlation with APS; and (iv) for each shift, calculating a total score by summing (i) a staffing calculator score, (ii) an agent preference calculator score, and (iii) an Agent Productivity Score calculator score; and selecting a shift having a highest total score and adding the selected shift of the agent to a list-of-maximum-shifts, wherein when the list-of-maximum-shifts includes all agents in the data store of agents' metrics and skills then the list-of-maximum-shifts is sent to the WFM application to a scheduling lib of the WFM system for an automatic shift-schedule generation for the activity type and a determined period, based on the list-of-maximum-shifts and other input parameters, and wherein the automatically generated shift-schedule is presented by a schedule manager microservice to a user via the GUI. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements: “an automatic-scheduling generation in a Workforce Management (WFM) application”; “a graphical user interface”; “an Agent Productivity Score Generator (APSG) module”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1 and 8 and related text and [0021] in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure, the computerized system may include one or more processors, one or more applications, and a memory including a data store of agents' metrics and skills and a data store of applications. [0022] Furthermore, in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure, the one or more processors may be configured to operate an Agent Productivity Score Generator (APSG) module, for each agent in the data store of agents' metrics and skills; [0045] According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, the improvement of the automatic- scheduling generation, in a WFM application, may be implemented by having agents placed in shifts in which they are most productive, according to related historic data of preconfigured KPI metrics. [0046] According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, in a computerized-system, such as system 100 that includes one or more processors 190, one or more applications 150, and a memory 115 including a data store of agents' metrics and skills 120 and a data store of applications 110, the one or more processors 190 may operate a module, such as Agent Productivity Score Generator (APSG) module 160, and such as APSG 200 in Figs. 2A-2B; [0074] According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, in current systems a GUI, such as GUI 300A, may be used for generating new schedules for a determined period, such as a week having a start date and end date, to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above. Although the prior art made of record discloses a workforce management application for automatic scheduling based on agents metrics and skills, the prior art does not specifically disclose the sequence of steps: “…(i) receiving user selection via the GUI of an activity type, a period for agents shift placement and a preconfigured number of performance metrics and attributed weight thereof; (ii) retrieving historical-data of the preconfigured number of performance metrics from the data store of agents’ metrics and the data store of applications for each scheduled-shift during a preconfigured period, wherein the preconfigured number of metrics are aggregated from different applications and the metrics are at least one of: (i) level of adherence; (ii) quality score; (iii) Average Handle Time (AHT); (iv) agent sentiment score; (v) available time; (vi) average speed of answer (vii) concurrent time; (viii) consult time; (ix) working time; (x) agent contracts; (xi) holds; (xii) refused contacts; (xiii) takeovers; (xiv) occupancy; (xv) active talk time; and (xvi) working rate, and wherein the retrieved historical-data of the preconfigured number of performance metrics are converted to a percentage value for calculating a weighted sum of the retrieved historical-data of the preconfigured number of performance metrics, (iii) calculating a weighted sum of the retrieved historical-data of the preconfigured number of performance metrics and the selected attributed weight thereof to yield an Agent Productivity Score (APS) for each scheduled-shift in the preconfigured period, wherein a nature of each preconfigured attributed weight is selected from (i) positive; (ii) zero; and (iii) negative,…” as recited in the claims.
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights