DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 4/3/2026. Claims 1-4, 10, 11 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's arguments filed 4/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Additionally, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
The previously pending rejection to claims 1-20, under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation “the report”, while claim 2 recites the limitation “the system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 and amended independent claim 11 recite “track and analyze communication metrics in real-time”.
There does not seem to be support in the originally filed specification for real-time tracking or analyzing of metrics. Clarification is required. Dependent claim 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected based on the same rationale.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, method claims 1-10 are directed to a series of steps, and system claims 11-20 are directed to computer memory and a processor. Thus the claims are directed to a process and machine, respectively.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite business response time management, including creating, performing, and generating steps.
The limitations of creating, performing, and generating, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite creating a client account for a business in response to a user entering business information relating to the business; performing at least one business response time determination function comprising a secret shopping operation on the business, wherein the function is operable to automatically submit an inquiry to the business via a web form, log temporal information including a time and date associated with the inquiry, monitor traffic received from the business in response to the inquiry across a plurality of communication channels including at least telephone calls, emails, and text messages, and track and analyze communication metrics in real-time; and generating a report card based on at least one metric measured during the at least one business time determination function, wherein the report card grades the response based on one or more predefined key performance indicators including a comparison of a measured time value to a threshold, and wherein the report comprises a score calculated by dividing a total number of KPIs by a number of successful attempts.
That is, other than reciting a computer processor, a client account is stored in a database accessible via a network, and non-transitory computer readable memory, the claim limitations merely cover commercial interactions, including business relations and marketing and sales activities, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include a computer processor, a client account is stored in a database accessible via a network, and non-transitory computer readable memory. The a computer processor, a client account is stored in a database accessible via a network, and non-transitory computer readable memory in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer processor, a client account is stored in a database accessible via a network, and non-transitory computer readable memory amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-8 further describe the at least one business response time determination function. Claims 9 and 10 further describe the metric. Similarly, dependent claims 12-20 recite additional details that further restrict/define the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, a computer processor, a client account is stored in a database accessible via a network, and non-transitory computer readable memory.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 0033 of the specification, “Processors 110 suitable for the execution of a computer program include both general and special purpose microprocessors and any one or more processors of any digital computing device. The processor 110 will receive instructions and data from a read-only memory or a random-access memory or both. The essential elements of a computing device are a processor for performing actions in accordance with instructions and one or more memory devices for storing instructions and data. Generally, a computing device will also include, or be operatively coupled to receive data from or transfer data to, or both, one or more mass storage devices for storing data, e.g., magnetic, magneto-optical disks, or optical disks; however, a computing device need not have such devices. Moreover, a computing device can be embedded in another device, e.g., a mobile telephone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile audio or video player, a game console, a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver, or a portable storage device (e.g., a universal serial bus (USB) flash drive).”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simons et al (US 20130297442 A1), in view of Kemp (US 8311863 B1).
As per claim 1, Simons et al disclose a method for using a computer system for business response time management (i.e., system and method for routing and tracking real estate leads is generally illustrated in FIG. 1, ¶ 0031), the method comprising:
a series of instructions stored in non-transitory computer readable memory that, when executed by a computer processor (i.e., server 102, figure 1), cause the processor to perform the steps of:
creating a client account for a business in response to a user entering business information relating to the business with the computer system, wherein the client account is stored in a database accessible via a network (i.e., the lead is generated, a unique identifier is provisioned and associated to that customer, or combination of customer and real estate agent, in a database, ¶ 0031. The lead profile information can be stored in a local or remote database, ¶ 0038, wherein The server may also include a dedicated embedded software device, a distributed computer system, or essentially any other computer system capable of managing the communication between real estate agents and leads, ¶ 0042);
performing at least one business response time determination function (i.e., The analytics can be designed to measure and compare various characteristics, such as but not limited to 1) measuring the average time of the initial lead response, i.e. determining how fast the agent reacts once the lead has been generated, ¶ 0041),
wherein the function is operable to automatically submit an inquiry to the business via a web form (i.e., if a customer makes an inquiry about a property on a real estate website, the website can be configured to collect information, create a real estate lead, and automatically communicate the real estate lead to the virtual agent communication system, ¶ 0035), log temporal information including a time and date associated with the inquiry in non-transitory computer readable memory (i.e., The interface includes details about the lead 402, such as the property of interest, the customer's name, the customer's virtual telephone number, and the date and time that the lead was received, ¶ 0052), monitor traffic received from the business in response to the inquiry across a plurality of communication channels including at least telephone calls, emails, and text messages (i.e., New identification can then be associated with the customer. Notification such as a text or telephone call can be sent to the agent identifying the customer using the new identifier. Such action begins the interaction with the client. Text, call, and email transactions can be logged in an effort to provide analytics around lead follow up and conversion, ¶ 0040), and track and analyze communication metrics in real-time (i.e., system can automatically log and track how long it took to respond. The system can also log the content of the response. If the real estate agent does not respond to the lead, the system can log and track that. This information can be stored in a database and used by the system to make lead routing decisions, ¶ 0033); and
generating a report card based on at least one metric measured during the at least one business response time determination function, wherein the report card grades the response based on one or more predefined key performance indicators (i.e., A report can be generated that indicates various metrics, such as the average time for a real estate agent to respond to a lead, ¶ 0033. The analytics can be designed to measure and compare various characteristics (i.e., benchmark), ¶ 0041) including a comparison of a measured time value to a threshold (i.e., if a real estate agent does not respond to a lead within a certain predetermined time period, a reminder can be sent to the agent or the lead can be routed to a different agent or to a pool of agent assistants that can qualify the lead, ¶ 0033).
Simons et al does not disclose performing at least one business response time determination function comprising a secret shopping operation on the business, and wherein the report comprises a score calculated by dividing a total number of KPIs by a number of successful attempts.
Kemp discloses data collection strategy includes formal collection and validation of touch-point data and channel integration which is fully integrated into CRM systems and forwarded to retail insights Dedicated data quality assurance team who maintain meta-data, and this is used as a reference by all other areas of the organization to enable intelligent analytics Strategy addresses end-to-end standardized risk mitigation processes for managing the security of customer information from collection to disposal (Table 14).
Agents have access to systems to assist with real-time decision making In-house, centralized quality team and external customer surveys given to measure quality Integrated customer verification process at the point of sign-up that is well understood and proactive Metrics and quality measured and coached throughout month - various training methods offered geared towards individual learners including refresher training programs Focus on gaining efficiencies through a improvements around first contact resolution and next best action Quality is measured proactively by automated tools Employees are seen as a strategic channel for gleaning customer and operational insight and are regularly used to identify and drive improvements (Table 38).
Kemp also discloses balanced scorecard displays standard data generated to track performance against KPI's which is distributed to performance management teams (Table 54), and a balanced scorecard containing service metrics, key performance indicators and benchmarks for industry comparison and analysis of future expectations (table 58).
Simons et al and Kemp are concerned with effective lead management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include performing at least one business response time determination function comprising a secret shopping operation on the business, and wherein the report comprises a score calculated by dividing a total number of KPIs by a number of successful attempts in Simons et al, as seen in Kemp, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2-4, Simons et al disclose wherein the system generates prospect identifier information including at least one of a unique name, email address, phone number, or physical address (i.e., a lead profile can include a source identifier (such as a telephone number of the source where the lead originated), the source name (the name of the source where the lead originated), a timestamp of when the lead was generated, a customer identifier (i.e. the name, nickname, or email address provided by the customer), the customer phone number (i.e. customer can provide the telephone number if a fill-in field or the telephone number could be provided by a caller-id functionality), a description of the customer's real estate interest or issue, the consumer's email address, the consumer's mobile telephone, ¶ 0037), and enters the prospect identifier information into appropriate fields in a contact form on a website of the business (if a customer makes an inquiry about a property on a real estate website, the website can be configured to collect information, create a real estate lead, and automatically communicate the real estate lead to the virtual agent communication system. For example a real estate lead could include a customer's name, telephone number, and a real estate comment or question, ¶ 0035), measures the business' response time to a customer inquiry by monitoring incoming contacts including calls, emails, and SMS messages sent to a system lead contact monitor and comparing the response time against KPIs set by a user (i.e., system can automatically log and track how long it took to respond. The system can also log the content of the response. If the real estate agent does not respond to the lead, the system can log and track that. This information can be stored in a database and used by the system to make lead routing decisions, ¶ 0033. The analytics can be designed to measure and compare various characteristics (i.e., benchmark), ¶ 0041), and measures the business' response time to a prospect inquiry by submitting prospect identifier information through a prospect contact form and monitoring the time and frequency of the business contacting the lead (i.e., The lead can then be scrubbed of all important information such as the property address, consumer name and contact number. New identification can then be associated with the customer. Notification such as a text or telephone call can be sent to the agent identifying the customer using the new identifier. Such action begins the interaction with the client. Text, call, and email transactions can be logged in an effort to provide analytics around lead follow up and conversion, ¶ 0040).
Simons et al does not disclose the at least one business response time determination function is a secret shopper function.
Kemp discloses Data collection strategy includes formal collection and validation of touch-point data and channel integration which is fully integrated into CRM systems and forwarded to retail insights Dedicated data quality assurance team who maintain meta-data, and this is used as a reference by all other areas of the organization to enable intelligent analytics Strategy addresses end-to-end standardized risk mitigation processes for managing the security of customer information from collection to disposal (Table 14).
Agents have access to systems to assist with real-time decision making In-house, centralized quality team and external customer surveys given to measure quality Integrated customer verification process at the point of sign-up that is well understood and proactive Metrics and quality measured and coached throughout month - various training methods offered geared towards individual learners including refresher training programs Focus on gaining efficiencies through a improvements around first contact resolution and next best action Quality is measured proactively by automated tools Employees are seen as a strategic channel for gleaning customer and operational insight and are regularly used to identify and drive improvements (Table 38).
Simons et al and Kemp are concerned with effective lead management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the at least one business response time determination function is a secret shopper function in Simons et al, as seen in Kemp, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 5, Simons et al disclose the at least one business response time determination function is performed automatically (i.e., If a real estate agent responds to a real estate lead provided by the system, the system can automatically log and track how long it took to respond, ¶ 0033).
As per claim 6, Simons et al disclose the at least one business response time determination function is performed manually (i.e., a report can be generated that indicates various metrics, such as the average time for a real estate agent to respond to a lead, which can be used to make adjustments to the system, such as the predetermined time period for reminding an agent or rerouting the lead, ¶ 0033).
As per claim 7, Simons et al disclose the at least one business response time determination function is based on at least two campaign variables (i.e., analytics can be designed to measure and compare various characteristics, such as but not limited to 1) measuring the average time of the initial lead response, i.e. determining how fast the agent reacts once the lead has been generated, 2) analyzing call versus text response trends, 3) call detail reporting, including duration and time stamp, 4) text messaging transcripts and time stamps, 5) average number of contact attempts, and 6) number of leads serviced by an agent versus the number of leads served by an agent assistant, ¶ 0041).
As per claim 8, Simons et al disclose the campaign variables are selected from basic info, clients, time settings, report settings, and resource settings (i.e., the website can be configured to collect information, create a real estate lead, and automatically communicate the real estate lead to the virtual agent communication system. For example a real estate lead could include a customer's name, telephone number, and a real estate comment or question, ¶ 0035).
As per claims 9 and 10, Simons et al does not disclose the metric measured is a call follow-up KPI, and wherein an overall score is based on a user configurable threshold for KPIs and wherein a weighted scoring system allows users to assign weighted values to each event to adjust how scores are calculated.
Kemp discloses a scorecard is used to display key metrics. Data warehouse insight enables cross-functional reporting, drill-down capabilities, and provides a single source of the truth. Insight is gained across multiple dimensions (e.g., call handling, quality, forecasting, etc.) Predictive modeling capability is incorporated into operational insight program Sophisticated tools are used that produce standardized reports to assess root cause analysis and to provide KPI tracking - the output is provided for performance improvement programs Insight leveraged to enable product and service outages to take place during times that least inconvenience the customer (Table 55).
Product development is focused on product portfolio optimization and retailer is good at product/service lifecycle management Retailer deploys a center of excellence approach to manage ideation through to commercialization of new products/services across the enterprise Customer centric methodologies (e.g. customer feedback data is fed back into process methodologies) (Table 15).
The capability assessment logic 1444 may determine an overall capability level for a capability corresponding to the capability level for the majority of the key assessment areas, or it may apply a weighted analysis technique to give more emphasis to some key assessment areas than others in determining the overall position on the scale of mastery 146 for a capability (columns 121-122, lines 65-4).
Simons et al and Kemp are concerned with effective lead management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the metric measured is a call follow-up KPI, and wherein an overall score is based on a user configurable threshold for KPIs and wherein a weighted scoring system allows users to assign weighted values to each event to adjust how scores are calculated in Simons et al, as seen in Kemp, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 11 and 15-20 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1 and 5-10, respectively, since they are the system claims corresponding to the method claims.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant argues that amended claims do not merely recite the concept of measuring business response times. Rather, the claims recite a specific, technically rooted method of automated secret shopping in which a computer system automatically submits an inquiry to a business via a web form, logs temporal information including a time and date in non-transitory computer readable memory, monitors incoming traffic from the business across a plurality of communication channels including at least telephone calls, emails, and text messages, and generates a report card that grades the response by comparing a measured time value against a predefined KPI threshold, with a score calculated by dividing a total number of KPIs by a number of successful attempts. These are not activities that a human organizer could perform in the ordinary course of business interactions. The claim requires the coordinated, automated operation of multiple distinct technical functions, web form submission, temporal data logging, multi-channel traffic monitoring, and algorithmic scoring against thresholds, that go well beyond what could be accomplished through human organization alone.
The Examiner's prior analysis characterized the claims at a high level of abstraction by reducing them to "creating, performing, and generating" steps. However, the amended claims now articulate the specific technical mechanism by which the system performs the business response time determination function. The claims are not directed to the abstract concept of evaluating business responsiveness but rather to a particular automated system and process for doing so that involves web form automation, temporal logging, multi-channel monitoring, and threshold-based algorithmic grading.
The amended claims impose meaningful limits on any alleged abstract idea by requiring a specific technical implementation. The claims require the system to automatically submit an inquiry via a web form on the business's website, which is a specific interaction with a networked computing resource. The claims further require logging temporal information associated with the inquiry in non-transitory computer readable memory, which ties the process to a particular data storage operation. The claims then require monitoring traffic received from the business across multiple distinct communication channels, telephone calls, emails, and text messages, which necessitates integration with multiple communication technologies and protocols. Finally, the claims require generating a report card that grades the response based on KPI thresholds and calculates a score using a specific formula, which constitutes a particular technological output that provides an actionable result.
These elements are not merely generic computer components applied to an abstract idea. The combination of automated web form submission, temporal data logging, multi-channel communication monitoring, and threshold-based KPI grading with algorithmic scoring constitutes a particular machine or particular transformation that integrates the claims into a practical application. The system produces a concrete, useful result, a graded report card with scores, that improves the technological process of lead response management by replacing the error-prone manual secret shopping process described in the background of the specification with an automated, multi-channel monitoring system that provides objective, reproducible measurements.
Even if the claims were found to be directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, the claims recite an inventive concept under Step 2B. The Examiner previously found that the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The amended claims, however, recite significantly more than generic computing.
The inventive concept lies in the ordered combination of specific technical steps: automatically submitting an inquiry to a business via a web form, logging the temporal information of the submission, monitoring the business's response across multiple communication channels including telephone, email, and text messaging, and then generating a graded report card based on KPI threshold comparisons with a score derived from dividing total KPIs by successful attempts. This particular ordered combination of elements was not conventional or routine at the time of filing. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As recited in paragraph 0004 of the specification, “For the foregoing reasons, there is a need for semi-automated and fully automated lead management and business response time, which can ensure a higher degree of accuracy in reporting and time measurement and better business management decisions.”
Paragraph 0007 of the specification recites “Advantages gained through implementation of the systems and methods disclosed herein include better measurement of employee productivity and more accurate comparison with metrics, particularly in the areas of lead follow-up, contacting, and converting prospective customers into sales. Increased accuracy of job performance analysis can lead to improved efficiency, higher sales numbers, better customer service, and better identification and remedies for problem areas for the business and a more effective allocation of resources.”
Additionally, paragraph 0040 recites “ Marketing database(s) can include marketing information that the system 100 stores, uses, makes accessible, and/or sends to users via the network 130. Database(s) can include profiles for users, report cards, and/or other information and can include saved payment information, statistical data, preferences, and other information for use by computer system 100.”
Paragraph 0056 goes on to recite “In various embodiments, the systems and methods disclosed herein can include a prospect mode with one or more features that allow system users to secret shop any business. This can be beneficial in that it can allow users to perform operations before sales calls or other calls. Prospect mode will be described with respect to example user interface screens as displayed in FIGs. 7-13.”
Similarly, the claim language recites “performing at least one business response time determination function comprising a secret shopping operation on the business, wherein the function is executed by a specialized response time monitoring module configured to operable to automatically submit an inquiry to the business via a web form, log temporal information including a time and date associated with the inquiry in non-transitory computer readable memory, monitor traffic received from the business in response to the inquiry across a plurality of communication channels including at least telephone calls, emails, and text messages, and track and analyze communication metrics in real-time; and generating a report card based…”
Following, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claim limitations merely cover commercial interactions, including business relations and marketing and sales activities, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Besides the abstract idea, the claims include a computer processor, a client account is stored in a database accessible via a network, and non-transitory computer readable memory.
The computer processor, a client account is stored in a database accessible via a network, and non-transitory computer readable memory in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use computer components as a tool (i.e., a computer processor, a client account is stored in a database accessible via a network, and non-transitory computer readable memory). There is no change to the computers and/or other technology recited in the claims, thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
As discussed in the MPEP § 2106.05 (a), “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification’s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691.”
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, a computer processor, a client account is stored in a database accessible via a network, and non-transitory computer readable memory. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Rather, as discussed in paragraph 0033 of the specification, “Processors 110 suitable for the execution of a computer program include both general and special purpose microprocessors and any one or more processors of any digital computing device. The processor 110 will receive instructions and data from a read-only memory or a random-access memory or both. The essential elements of a computing device are a processor for performing actions in accordance with instructions and one or more memory devices for storing instructions and data.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Applicant also argues that none of the cited references, alone or in combination, disclose or suggest the amended independent claims, including the automatic web form submission, temporal logging, multi-channel traffic monitoring, and threshold-based KPI grading with algorithmic scoring as part of a secret shopping operation. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed in the updated rejection, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Simons et al in view of Kemp indeed disclose Applicant’s amended claim language.
Following, as described in paragraph 0003 of Applicant’s specification, “tracking business gaps in lead management and business response time has been performed manually by internal and external quality assurance people and groups, sometimes known as "secret shoppers."
Similarly, Kemp discloses data collection strategy includes formal collection and validation of touch-point data and channel integration which is fully integrated into CRM systems and forwarded to retail insights Dedicated data quality assurance team who maintain meta-data, and this is used as a reference by all other areas of the organization to enable intelligent analytics Strategy addresses end-to-end standardized risk mitigation processes for managing the security of customer information from collection to disposal (Table 14).
Agents have access to systems to assist with real-time decision making In-house, centralized quality team and external customer surveys given to measure quality Integrated customer verification process at the point of sign-up that is well understood and proactive Metrics and quality measured and coached throughout month - various training methods offered geared towards individual learners including refresher training programs Focus on gaining efficiencies through a improvements around first contact resolution and next best action Quality is measured proactively by automated tools Employees are seen as a strategic channel for gleaning customer and operational insight and are regularly used to identify and drive improvements (Table 38).
Conclusion
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 ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 June 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights