DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment and request for continued examination filed May 22, 2026. Applicant’s May 26th amendment amended claims 1, 10 and 16; claims 4, 12 and 18 being previously canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, 19 and 20 are pending. Claims 1, 10 and 16 are the independent claims.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 22, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, 19 and 20 in the previous office action are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed may 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the the claims are not directed to an abstract idea (e.g. the claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind, are not one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas; claims form a structural workflow that enables controlling routing behavior in an ACD; automated system-level control of routing behavior within an ACD; Remarks: Pages 10, 13, 14; Last Paragraph, Page 15); the claims are similar to Diamond v. Diehr (e.g. adjusting by a specific number, by the ACD the maximum number of concurrent written transactions an agent can handle....; Specification: Paragraph 53; Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 14; Page 15; Paragraph 1, Page 18); the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (e.g. ACD enforces routing decisions such as to not route interactions that exceed an allowable (agent) workload threshold: Specification: Paragraphs 47, 61; Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 16; Pages 17, 18); the claims are similar to Subject Matter Eligibility Example 36 (e.g. dynamically controlling agent workload based on readability and correlation parameters thereby improving system performance; Specification: Paragraph 35; Remarks: Paragraph 2, Page 19); and the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea/are similar to Bascom (e.g. real-time, data driven control of routing behavior within ACD; Remarks: Page 20, 22).
In response to applicant's argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dynamically regulate workflow limits and conference routing constraints in real time; Remarks: Paragraph 3, Page 14; product of reading ease score and the output of the Multinomial Naive Bayes algorithm advantageously achieves a better text input complexity and classification result compared to using each method separately; Remarks: Paragraph 1, Page 15; real-time, data driven control of routing behavior within ACD; Remarks: Paragraph 1, Page 22) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea (cannot be practically performed in the human mind, are not one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to a well-known business practice – routing customer communications (written interactions) to contact center agents – more specifically the claimed invention liimts the number of concurrent written interactions routed to an agent based on an adjusted maximum number of interactions the agent can handle.
While the claims may represent an improvement to the fundamental economic process of human task assignment – contact center routing, the claims in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application, provide a technical solution to a technical problem, improve any of the underlying technology (processor, computer readable medium, automatic call distributor (software per se), workforce management system (software per se), or improve another technical field (agent routing is not a technical field, call distribution is not a technical field).
Additionally, the claims are directed to a mental processing practically capable of being performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Representative claim 1: The step of receiving a first written interaction from a customer may be performed in the human mind using observation of data. The step of routing the first written interaction to an agent may be performed in the human via judgement. The step of calculating a Flesch reading ease score may be performed in the human mind via evaluation. Additionally, the calculating step is directed to a mathematical operation/concept. The step of applying a natural language processing algorithm to the text of the written interaction may be performed in the human mind by evaluation and judgement. The step multiplying the Flesch reading score and the numeric class may be performed in the human mind by evaluation. Additionally, the multiplying step is directed to a mathematical operation/concept. The step of aggregating the readability score with a plurality of past readability scores may be performed in the human mind by observation and judgement. Additionally, the aggregating step is directed to a mathematical operation/concept. The step of creating a readability score scale may be performed in the human mind by observation and judgement. Additionally, the creating step is directed to a mathematical operation/concept. The step of creating a concurrency level scale may be performed in the human mind by observation and judgement. Additionally, the creating step is directed to a mathematical operation/concept. The step of correlating the readable scores, minimum number of concurrent written interactions and maximum number of interactions may be performed in the human mind by observation and judgement. Additionally, the correlating step is directed to a mathematical operation/concept. The step of adjusting the maximum number of concurrent written interactions based on the correlation may be performed in the human mind via judgement and opinion. The step of limiting the number of concurrent written interactions routed to the agent may be performed in the human mind via judgement.
Other than the recitation of a processor, computer readable medium, automatic call distributor (software per se), workforce management system (software per se) nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations directed to a hardware device including a processor, computer readable medium, automatic call distributor (software per se), workforce management system (software per se) are each recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer (i.e., processor, computer readable medium, automatic call distributor (software per se), workforce management system (software per se) (each used for their well-understood, conventional and routine purpose) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of “visualizing flow direction is a distribution network” (Claim 20, preamble). In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (processor, memory, ACD, etc.), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner (See at least Specification Paragraphs 25, 34, 38). Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Reevaluating the steps of receiving a first written interaction which is considered insignificant extra solution activity, these limitations are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than receiving data which is well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The limitations remain insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are similar to Diamond v. Diehr, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Diamond v. Diehr decision wherein the claims are directed to controlling a rubber molding process with a computer to precisely shape uncured material under heat and pressure and then cure the synthetic rubber in the mold to obtain a product that retains its shape. Key to subject matter eligibility of this decision is that the claims are directed to automatically, via a computer, operating the rubber mold based on repetitive and constant calculations by the computer to ensure the mold is automatically opened at the appropriate time. The claim was found to recite significantly more than an abstract idea (i.e. calculating mold time) and resulted in the transformation of rubber into a different statue or thing (i.e. cured rubber).
The claims of the instant application do not pass either of these tests, as the claimed invention does not actually control any equipment of any kind (ACD – see Specification Paragraph 25 – merely a generic, commercially available system or software used for routing/assigning customer communications/interactions to agents in a contact/call center) nor the claims transform anything into a different state or thing (routing written interactions from customers to agents is not a physical item/product). As recited the pending claims merely transmit a signal causing performance of a pre-assembly kit pick job (i.e. a well-known, conventional and routine task).
Accordingly, the claims are not similar to Diehr and are therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to a well-known business practice – human task management – in this limiting the number of concurrent (customer) written interactions routed to an agent. While the claims may represent an improvement to the business process of limiting the number of concurrent written interactions routed to an agent and/or human task management they in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application.
Under the see MPEP § 2106.05, the claims are evaluated to determine if additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)- (h)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(±);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
In view of the MPEP § 2106.05, one must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The identified additional non-abstract elements recited in the independent claims are the agent (who is a person), the customer (who is a person) and additional limitations of generic computer elements: processor, computer readable medium, automatic call distributor (software per se), workforce management system (software per se). See 2106.04(a). These generic computer hardware merely performs generic computer functions of receiving, processing and providing data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s agent routing in the general field of call center management/planning and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
These recited additional elements are merely generic computer components. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP § 2106.05 regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are 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.
Regarding the recited natural language processing algorithm applied to the text to output a numeric class the natural language processing algorithm recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic natural language processing algorithm on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The natural language processing algorithm is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the natural language processing algorithm functions. natural language processing algorithm is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic natural language processing algorithm to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
For the reasons outlined above, that the claims recite a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (i.e., computer processor, computer readable medium, automatic call distributor (software per se), workforce management system (software per se)) is no more than a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)).
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in the claims beyond the abstract idea is a computer processor, computer readable medium, automatic call distributor (software per se), workforce management system (software per se)” i.e., generic computer component. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding the argued Automatic Call Distributor (ACD), ACDs are old, well-known, routine and conventional systems commercially available well prior to the filing of the instant application. As disclosed in Applicant’s specification Paragraph 25 ACDs can be any combination of hardware, software or combinations of hardware/software (“For the purposes of the present disclosure, “ACD” refers to any combination of hardware, software and/or embedded logic that is operable to automatically distribute incoming communications, including requests for service transmitted using any audio and/or video means, including signals, data or messages transmitted through voice devices, text chat, web sessions, facsimile, instant messaging and e-mail."). Nothing in Applicant’s disclosure suggests that either the disclosed or claimed invention recites a non-standard or non-conventional ACD. Nothing in Applicant’s disclosure suggests that the claimed invention improves the functioning of an ACD (e.g. increased processor speed, reduce memory usage, or the like). Nothing in Applicant’s disclosure suggests that the invention either as disclosed or claimed provided a technical solution to a technical problem related to ACD or computing elements of ACD systems. Adjusting how a standard/commercially available ACD system routes customer interactions to agents is precisely what ACDs are used for, it is there inherent purpose/role in a call center, wherein agent routing is not a technical solution to a technical problem, agent routing is not an improvement in another technical field. At best the adjustment to the concurrent written interactions routed to an agent improves the abstract idea itself – a well-known business problem – agent routing/call distribution.
Regarding the recited natural language processing algorithm applied to the text to output a numeric class the natural language processing algorithm recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic natural language processing algorithm on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The natural language processing algorithm is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the natural language processing algorithm functions. natural language processing algorithm is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic natural language processing algorithm to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished. The recitation of a natural language processing algorithm in this claim does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the natural language processing algorithm is merely used at a tool to perform an otherwise mental process.
Similar to the discussion in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Appeal No. 19-1835 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020), where the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that software inventions are patentable in the U.S. with a bright-line statement: “Our precedent is clear that software can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” the instant application merely applies the abstract idea using a generic computer as a conduit/tool for the abstract idea and does not improve the functioning of a computer or computer networks, does not improve another technical field and does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem.
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 47, this paragraph merely discloses that the ACD routes (customer communications) to an agent who is not yet at their cognitive load limit/max concurrency limit based on readability scores/scales. This paragraph, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure fails to discuss at any level of detail providing a technical solution to a technical problem, improving the functioning underlying technology components/elements or improving another technical field. At best the invention improves the well-known business/commercial practice of human task assignment – specifically agent routing by limiting the number of concurrent customer written interactions are routed/assigned/distributed to the agent (i.e. improvement in the abstract idea itself).
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 61, this paragraph discloses that the maximum concurrency level of an agent is based on a correlation (max concurrency, readability, etc.). This paragraph, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure, does not disclose an improvement in the underlying technology (e.g. processor, memory, etc.); does not disclose an improvement in another technical field; and does not disclose providing a technical solution to a technical problem.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are similar to Subject Matter Eligibility Example 36, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially it is noted that Subject Matter 36 was released in December 2016 well prior to the most recent guidance regarding subject matter eligibly under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant is encouraged to review the most recent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility
SME 36 is directed to an inventory management system identified as a well-known commercial practice wherein claim 1 was found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 and claims 2 and 3 were found to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 2 was found to be patent eligible as it was similar to DDR in that the claimed invention provided a solution necessarily rooted in computer technology to address a problem specifically arising in the real of computer vision systems (e.g. used of a camera array with reconstruction software for automatically tracking objects and determining their physical location). Claim 3 was found patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims recite a combination of limitations provides a hardware and software solution that improves upon previous inventory management techniques by avoiding the cumbersome use of RFID and GPS transmitters and the inaccuracy issues that plagued previous computer vision solutions, wherein the combination of features provide meaningful limitations to the practical application of inventory tracking with computer vision, by improving the system’s ability to identify and track objects across multiple cameras in a three‐dimensional space).
In sharp contrast the instant application does not disclose much alone claim an improvement computer vision or provide a technical solution to a technical problem arising in the realm of computers, computer networks or computer vision systems. Nor does the claimed invention integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see detailed discussion below.
At best, as disclosed in Application Specification Paragraph 25 (see below), the claims and disclosed invention merely improve a well-known business/commercial practice – call/contact routing, agent assignment, task scheduling of the like. Wherein the improvement, if there is one, is in the abstract idea itself and not in any of the underlying technology (i.e. at best the claimed/disclosed invention improves the efficiency or efficacy of a contact center (business problem)).
[0035] According to one aspect of the present disclosure, the contact center control system 142 is configured to record, collect, and analyze contact voice data and other structured and unstructured data, and other tools may be used in association therewith to increase efficiency and efficacy of the contact center. …..
Accordingly, the claims are not similar to SME 36 and are therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are similar to Bascom Global Internet vs. AT&T Mobility (2016), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In Bascom the court found that the combination of additionally elements specifically the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location remote from the end-users with customizable filtering features specific to each user wherein the filtering tool at the ISP was able to identify individual accounts that communicate with the ISP server and to associate a request for internet content with a specific individual account were held to be meaningful limitations because the confined the idea of content filtering to a particular, practical application of the abstract idea.
In sharp contrast to the instant application which is directed to using well-known, conventional and routine Automatic Call Distribution systems to limit the number of concurrent written (customer) interactions to a agent (agent routing/call distribution). The claims fail to recite customizable filtering, fail to recite a computer network/Internet, fail to recite a remote computers or the like. The instant application is in no way even remotely related to filtering Internet content by Internet Service Providers as is the case in Bascom.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of agent routing – human task assignment. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (processor, memories, etc.), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in independent claims 1, 10 and 16 through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
The claimed invention is drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea and merely require a generic computer implementation (see Specification: Paragraphs 25, 24, 28), which fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The instant invention/claims are drawn to agent routing, business activity, and furthermore does not include much else, individually or as an ordered combination, that transforms the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. In the current language, the claim is merely implemented or executed using a processor/generic computer and therefore does not improve upon the technology or functionality of the computer beyond the abstract idea. In other words, Examiner submits that the inventive concept, i.e. an element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept (of an abstract idea itself)”, is unable to be SME 48determined within the limitations as claimed.
The Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). This is illustrated, e.g., by Examples 7 (AI-7: e-commerce with transaction performance guaranty), 22 (GUI for meal planning), and 24 (updating alarm limits). In contrast, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. This is illustrated in, e.g., Examples 3 (AI-3: digital image processing), 23 (GUI for relocating obscured textual information), and 25 (rubber manufacturing).
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, 19 and 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) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 10 and 16, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of human task assignment (agent routing). This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, human task assignment (agent routing) (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to limiting the number of concurrent written interactions (with a customer/user) routed (assigned) to an agent based on a maximum number of concurrent written interactions an agent can handle, wherein human task assignment (agent routing, in a call center) is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea managing personal behavior and/or interactions between people. See 2106.04(a). Further all of the steps of “receiving”, “routing”, “calculating”, “applying”, “multiplying”, “aggregating”, “creating”, “creating”, “correlating”, “adjusting” and “limiting” recite functions of the human task assignment (agent routing) are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea managing personal behavior and/or interactions between people. The steps of calculating a Flesch reading ease score, multiplying the Flesch reading score, aggregating the readability score and correlating the minimum number of concurrent interactions also directed to an abstract idea because they are mathematical concepts/operations. The intended purpose of independent claims 1, 10, and 16 appears limit the number of concurrent written interactions routed to an agent.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea managing personal behavior and/or interactions between people. The exceptions are the agent (who is a person), the customer (who is a person) and additional limitations of generic computer elements: processor, computer readable medium, automatic call distributor (software per se), workforce management system (software per se) including instruction. See 2106.04(a).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See 2106.04(a)), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: processor, computer readable medium, automatic call distributor (software per se), workforce management system (software per se) including instruction. These generic computing components are merely used to receive/access, process or display data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Paragraph 34 – “"The processor 144 can be any custom made or commercially available processor,….”; Paragraph 25 – “"For the purposes of the present disclosure, “ACD” refers to any combination of hardware, software and/or embedded logic…..”; Paragraph 66). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's human task assignment (agent routing) in the general field of call center planning/management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a) regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, 19 and 20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited processor, computer readable medium, automatic call distributor (software per se), workforce management system (software per se) including instruction," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the MPEP 2106.04(a), that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of routing the first written interaction to an agent, calculating a Flesch reading score, applying a natural language processing algorithm, multiplying the Flesch reading score, aggregating the readability score, creating a readability score scale, creating a concurrency level scale, correlating readability scores, minimum number of concurrent written interactions and maximum number of concurrent interactions, adjusting the maximum number of concurrent written interactions and limiting the number of written interactions routed to the agent all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a processor, computer readable medium, automatic call distributor (software per se), workforce management system (software per se) nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps receiving a first written interaction are directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic processor, computer readable medium, automatic call distributor (software per se), workforce management system (software per se) are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of retrieving, processing or displaying data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Regarding the recited natural language processing algorithm applied to the text to output a numeric class the natural language processing algorithm recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic natural language processing algorithm on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The natural language processing algorithm is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the natural language processing algorithm functions. natural language processing algorithm is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic natural language processing algorithm to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished. The recitation of a natural language processing algorithm in this claim does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the natural language processing algorithm is merely used at a tool to perform an otherwise mental process.
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. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the receiving step that was considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 12, 3, 5-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19 and 20, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of human task assignment (agent routing) and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1, 10 and 16.
Claims 2, 11 and 17 further limits the abstract idea by calculating a mean readability score and one standard deviation from the mean readability score (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 3 and 13 further limit the abstract idea by calculating two and three standard deviations of the readability score (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 5 further limits the abstract idea by determining the minimum and maximum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 6 and 19 further limits the abstract idea by calculating a mean number of concurrent written interactions that the agent can handle and one standard deviation from the mean number of concurrent interactions and a maximin number of concurrent interactions (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by calculating two and three standard deviations of the number of concurrent written communications (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 8 and 14 further limit the abstract idea by determining a reading comprehension level of an agent and determining if the agent is capable of handling the first written interaction based on the readability score and reading comprehension level of agent (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 9, 15 and 20 further limit the abstract idea by receiving a second written interaction and deciding to route the second written interaction based on a readability score and the adjusted maximum concurrency (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, 19 and 20, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a processor, computer readable medium, automatic call distributor (software per se), workforce management system (software per se) at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Paragraph 25 - "For the purposes of the present disclosure, “ACD” refers to any combination of hardware, software and/or embedded logic that is operable to automatically distribute incoming communications, including requests for service transmitted using any audio and/or video means, including signals, data or messages transmitted through voice devices, text chat, web sessions, facsimile, instant messaging and e-mail."; Paragraph 34 - "The processor 144 can be any custom made or commercially available processor, a central processing unit (CPU), an auxiliary processor among several processors associated with the control system 142, a semiconductor-based microprocessor (in the form of a microchip or chip set), a macroprocessor, a collection of communicatively coupled processors, or any device for executing software instructions. The system memory 146 provides the processor 144 with non-transitory, computer-readable storage to facilitate execution of computer instructions by the processor. "). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. memory, processor, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a processor, computer readable medium, automatic call distributor (software per se), workforce management system (software per se) including instructions merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Paragraphs 25, 34). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chadha et al., U.S. Patent No. 10498897 discloses a system and method call/contact center management comprising load balancing using a routing algorithm/protocols which include accounting for call/contact complexity and current agent workload/call volume
Lahav et al., U.S. Patent No. 10841427 discloses a call/contact management system method including workflow/workload balancing of a plurality of agents handling simultaneous calls/contacts/interactions including call/contact routing based on conversation (interaction) difficulty, complexity and the like.
Chan et al., U.S. Patent No. 11403571 discloses a call center automatic call distribution system/agent routing/assignment workflow system - including taking into account the complexity of requests/questions when routing/assigning agents.
Allison et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170024680 discloses a call center automatic call distribution system/agent routing/assignment workflow system - including taking into account the complexity of requests/questions when routing/assigning agents.
Matula et al., U.S. Patent No. 9894201 discloses a system and method for assigning/routing contacts to agents including taking into account the complexity of text interactions (complexity score) while a text interaction is in progress (chat).
Young et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20030154072 discloses a call/contact center automatic distribution system and method including taking into account a readability score including Coleman-Liau score, the Flesch Index, and the Fog Index (Paragraph 38).
Sobus et al., U.S. Patent No. 9100486 discloses a call center workflow management system including taking into account of the complexity of agent/contact transactions/interactions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights