DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a Final Action on the merits in response to the amendments filed on 10/08/2025.
Claims 1, 10, and 16, are amended.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 11, 13 – 17, and 19 – 20, are currently pending in this application.
Response to Remarks
Examiner’s Response to Remarks:
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 – Claims are Subject Matter Eligible;
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 – Claims are Non-Obvious.
Examiner’s response to Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 – Claims are Subject Matter Eligible.
Applicant argues the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea under either of the revised Step 2A, Prongs One and Two of the Mayo test.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations of amended independent claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites mathematical concepts. For example, claim 1 recites calculating a Flesch reading ease score of the first written interaction; multiplying the Flesch reading ease score and the numeric class to provide the readability score of the first written interaction; and aggregating the readability score with a plurality of past readability scores of written interactions assigned to the agent are all mathematical calculations. Applying a natural language processing algorithm to the text of the first written interaction to output a numeric class; creating a readability score scale based on the aggregated readability score with the plurality of past readability scores; creating a concurrency level scale based on a minimum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle and a maximum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle; correlating readability scores, the minimum number of number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle, and the maximum number of number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle, using the readability score scale and the concurrency level scale; and adjusting the maximum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle based on the correlation are all mathematical relationships. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of mathematical concepts.
The limitations of amended independent claim 1 under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity where claim recites commercial interactions. For example, receiving a first written interaction from a first customer; routing the first written interaction to an agent; calculating a Flesch reading ease score of the first written interaction; multiplying the Flesch reading ease score and the numeric class to provide the readability score of the first written interaction; aggregating, the readability score with a plurality of past readability scores of written interactions assigned to the agent; creating, a readability score scale based on the aggregated readability score with the plurality of past readability scores; creating a concurrency level scale based on a minimum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle and a maximum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle; correlating readability scores… using the readability score scale and concurrency level scale; and adjusting the maximum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle based on the correlation are all marketing behaviors and business relations.. The claim describes the interactions between the business and customer where the observation of commercial interactions is directly supported by Applicant’s Spec. ¶ 0020, “such as taking an order, making a sale, responding to a complaint.” Applicant’s Spec. ¶¶ 0020 and 0024, respectively, recites “an interaction that may occur between a contact (or customer),” and “internet-based interactions may be received and handled by a marketing department associated with either the contact center or analytics center,” further signaling commercial interactions such as marketing activities. Accordingly claim 1 recites certain methods of organizing human activity. Amended independent claims 10 and 16 are similar and recite the same abstract idea.
The limitations of claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., an automatic communication distributor (ACD), a natural language processing algorithm, a workforce management (WFM) system, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and a processor); and uses a computer as a tool to perform mental processes. Applying the Flesch reading ease formula to calculate an agent’s readability score of written interactions can be performed using the human mind, pen, and paper. For instance, observing a first written interaction from a first customer; evaluating a Flesch reading ease score of the first written interaction; evaluating the Flesch reading ease score and the numeric class to provide the readability score of the first written interaction; evaluating the readability score with a plurality of past readability scores of written interactions assigned to the agent; evaluating a readability score scale based on the aggregated readability score with the plurality of past readability scores; evaluating a concurrency level scale based on a minimum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle and a maximum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle; evaluating readability scores, the minimum number of number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle, and the maximum number of number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle using the readability score scale and the concurrency level scale; and evaluating the maximum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle based on the correlation all involve observation and evaluation of data. Creating a score scale, determining correlations in scores, and aggregating readability the plurality of past readability scores can all be hand calculated with pen and paper. Accordingly claim 1 recites mental processes. Amended independent claims 10 and 16 are and recite the same abstract idea.
Applicant’s claim 1 in summary, collects and analyzes data. Claim 1 as a whole does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application, and there are no additional elements recited in the claims that goes beyond the judicial exception. Applicant’s amended independent claims recite additional elements such as an automatic communication distributor, a natural language processing algorithm, a workforce management system, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and a processor which are generic computer components as per Applicant’s Specifications ¶ 0034, used as a tool to perform a mental process. There is no inventive concept, even though a natural language processing algorithm is applied, as Applicant is merely resolving a business problem. Claims 10 and 16 are similar to claim 1. The limitations of the dependent claims, 2 – 3, 5 – 11, 13 – 17, and 19 – 20 are not integrated into a practical application because none of the additional elements set forth any limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea implementation. The claim rejections remain under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for all pending claims.
Examiner’s response to Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 – Claims are Non-Obvious.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive where Applicant argues Power fails to disclose multiplying the Flesch reading ease score and the numeric class and merely recites performing a readability analysis to generate a readability range. Examiner has removed rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Rejections: 35 U.S.C. § 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, and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 recites:
receiving a first written interaction from a first customer;
routing the first written interaction to an agent;
calculating a Flesch reading ease score of the first written interaction;
multiplying the Flesch reading ease score and the numeric class to provide the readability score of the first written interaction;
aggregating the readability score with a plurality of past readability scores of written interactions assigned to the agent;
creating a readability score scale based on the aggregated readability score with the plurality of past readability scores;
creating a concurrency level scale based on a minimum concurrency level and a maximum concurrency level of the agent;
correlating readability scores and concurrency levels using the readability score scale and the concurrency level scale;
and adjusting the maximum concurrency level of the agent based on the correlation.
The limitations of amended independent claim 1 under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial interactions – marketing and sales activities or behaviors; or business relations. For example, receiving a first written interaction from a first customer; routing the first written interaction to an agent; calculating a Flesch reading ease score of the first written interaction; multiplying the Flesch reading ease score and the numeric class to provide the readability score of the first written interaction; aggregating, the readability score with a plurality of past readability scores of written interactions assigned to the agent; creating, a readability score scale based on the aggregated readability score with the plurality of past readability scores; creating a concurrency level scale based on a minimum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle and a maximum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle; correlating readability scores… using the readability score scale and concurrency level scale; and adjusting the maximum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle based on the correlation. The claim describes the interactions between the business and customer where the observation of commercial interactions is directly supported by Applicant’s Spec. ¶ 0020, “such as taking an order, making a sale, responding to a complaint.” Applicant’s Spec. ¶¶ 0020 and 0024, respectively, recites “an interaction that may occur between a contact (or customer),” and “internet-based interactions may be received and handled by a marketing department associated with either the contact center 100 or analytics center,” further signaling commercial interactions such as marketing and sales activities, and business relations. Accordingly claim 1 recites certain methods of organizing human activity. Amended independent claims 10 and 16 are similar and recite certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitations of claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., an automatic communication distributor (ACD), a natural language processing algorithm, a workforce management (WFM) system, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and a processor); and uses a computer as a tool to perform mental processes. For instance, observing a first written interaction from a first customer; evaluating a Flesch reading ease score of the first written interaction; evaluating the Flesch reading ease score and the numeric class to provide the readability score of the first written interaction; evaluating the readability score with a plurality of past readability scores of written interactions assigned to the agent; evaluating a readability score scale based on the aggregated readability score with the plurality of past readability scores; evaluating a concurrency level scale based on a minimum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle and a maximum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle; evaluating readability scores, the minimum number of number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle, and the maximum number of number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle using the readability score scale and the concurrency level scale; and evaluating the maximum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle based on the correlation all involve observation and evaluation of data. Amended independent claims 10 and 16 substantially recite similar subject matter of claim. Thus amended independent claims 1, 10, and 16 may be considered mental processes.
The limitations of amended independent claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites mathematical concepts, and particularly, mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships. For example, claim 1 recites calculating a Flesch reading ease score of the first written interaction; multiplying the Flesch reading ease score and the numeric class to provide the readability score of the first written interaction; and aggregating the readability score with a plurality of past readability scores of written interactions assigned to the agent are mathematical calculations. Applying a natural language processing algorithm to the text of the first written interaction to output a numeric class; creating a readability score scale based on the aggregated readability score with the plurality of past readability scores; creating a concurrency level scale based on a minimum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle and a maximum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle; correlating readability scores, the minimum number of number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle, and the maximum number of number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle, using the readability score scale and the concurrency level scale; and adjusting the maximum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle based on the correlation are mathematical relationships. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of mathematical concepts.
The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas as well. For instance, claims 2, 11, and 17 are directed towards evaluating a readability score scale at one standard deviation from the mean; claim 3 is directed towards evaluating the readability score scale at two and three standard deviations; claim 5 is directed towards evaluating the minimum number of concurrent written interactions… written interactions the agent can handle; claims 6, 13, and 19 are directed towards evaluating a mean concurrency level scale comprises calculating a mean… and the maximum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle; claim 7 is directed towards evaluating the concurrency level scale further comprises calculating… from the mean number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle; claims 8 and 14 are directed towards evaluating a reading comprehension level of the agent; and evaluating that the agent is capable of handling the first written interaction… reading comprehension level of the agent; and claims 9, 15, and 20 are directed towards evaluating a readability score of the first written interaction and observing a second written interaction from a second customer and evaluating whether to route the second written interaction to the agent… written interactions the agent can handle all are directed towards evaluation and observation of data. Thus, the dependent claims further limit the abstract concepts found in the independent claims. These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations of claims 10 and 16, respectively, substantially recite the same subject matter of claim 1 and also include the abstract ideas identified above, with additional elements such as an automatic communication distributor, a natural language processing algorithm, a workforce management system, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and a processor which are generic computer components as per Applicant’s Specifications shown below:
“[0034] The contact center further includes a contact center control system that is generally configured to provide recording, voice analysis, behavioral analysis, text analysis, storage, and other processing functionality to the contact center. In the illustrated embodiment, the contact center control system is an information handling system such as a computer, server, workstation, mainframe computer, or other suitable computing device. In other embodiments, the control system may be a plurality of communicatively coupled computing devices coordinated to provide the above functionality for the contact center. The control system includes a processor that is communicatively coupled to a system memory, a mass storage device, and a communication module. The processor 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, 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.”
and thus are not practically integrated nor significantly more.
Claim 10 recites the additional elements of an automatic communication distributor, a natural language processing algorithm, and a workforce management system. Claim 16 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a processor, an automatic communication distributor, and a workforce management system. The additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a processor, an automatic communication distributor, and a workforce management system are considered generic computer components (see at least Specifications ¶ 0034), as in “or other suitable computing device” performing generic computer functions.
The steps of observing a first written interaction from a first customer; evaluating a Flesch reading ease score of the first written interaction; evaluating the Flesch reading ease score and the numeric class to provide the readability score of the first written interaction; evaluating the readability score with a plurality of past readability scores of written interactions assigned to the agent; evaluating a readability score scale based on the aggregated readability score with the plurality of past readability scores; evaluating a concurrency level scale based on a minimum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle and a maximum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle; evaluating readability scores, the minimum number of number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle, and the maximum number of number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle using the readability score scale and the concurrency level scale; and evaluating the maximum number of concurrent written interactions the agent can handle based on the correlation are considered extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering). Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., processor). The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of an automatic communication distributor, a workforce management system, a natural language processing algorithm, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and a processor are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions and amount to no more than mere instructions using generic computer components to implement the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2 – 3, 5 – 9, 11, 13 – 15, 17, and 19 – 20, when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as ordered combination and individually add nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1 – 3, 5 – 11, 13 – 17, and 19 – 20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Note: these are additional references found but not used.
- Reference Pahud, Tristan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0259250) discloses a computer-implemented method for managing a contact center having a plurality of agents.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank Alston whose telephone number is 703-756-4510. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM Monday - Friday. Examiner can be reached via Fax at 571-483-7338.
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.
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.
/FRANK MAURICE ALSTON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3625
01/20/2026
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625